Reply to Attn of: 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Headquarters 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

Science Mission Directorate 

OC1 1 7 ?019 

NASA Response to Planetary Protection Independent Review Board Recommendations 

I want to thank Chair Alan Stem and the knowledgeable and hardworking board he pulled 

together for their quick and comprehensive work to produce this report of the Planetary 

Protection Independent Review Board (PPIRB). 

This report represents an important step forward in a very complex area. It helps inform how 

we at NASA modernize our approach to the wide range of issues and work with the 

commercial and international partners who will be involved with us in planetary exploration 

throughout the solar system in the coming years. The report reaffirms the direction of 

NASA's thinking and changing practice in this area. We appreciate the PPIRB's assessment 

that recent changes in the Planetary Protection Office (PPO) and its relocation to the Office of 

Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA) have improved communication, clarity, and 

responsiveness to community needs and concerns. 

This is a first step, and there is much important work left to do. Our intent is always to 

encourage exploration and to be responsible stewards of the amazing places we have the 

opportunity to visit and to do the very best science while also protecting our home planet. 

The report highlights changes in planetary science and planetary protection techniques in 

recent years. In light of the current pace of change, and the likelihood that it will accelerate in 

the future, NASA agrees that planetary protection policies need to be updated regularly and 

expeditiously to be effective. Moreover, and consistent with guidance from a recent report of 

the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, the way planetary missions 

are implemented must adapt to the combination of scientific advances and the changing 

reality of space exploration. NASA is best served with a revised policy regime that enables 

exploration - both public and private - while also complying with the relevant articles of 

the Outer Space Treaty and protecting opportunities for scientific discoveries to be made in 

the future. 

We now move toward the internal and external coordination that will enhance this discussion 

and infonn NASA's next steps. 

Following the Agency's initial review of the PPIRB's report, I have asked Dr. Lisa Pratt, 

NASA's Planetary Protection Officer, and Dr. Lori Glaze, the Planetary Science Division 

Director, to lead the Agency's implementation of the PPIRB's findings and recommendations. 

Dr. Pratt and Dr. Glaze will coordinate with offices across NASA and the commercial sector, 

as needed, to carry out this task. Several of the recommendations in this report will require 

 

2019

NASA Planetary

Protection

Independent Review

Board (PPIRB)

REPORT TO NASA/SMD

--FINAL REPORT--

NASA Planetary

Protection

Independent Review
1

Table of Contents

LIST OF ACRONYMS USED.......................................................................................................................................................2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................................................3

1.0 BACKGROUND......................................................................................................................................................................4

PLANETARY PROTECTION BACKGROUND. .................................................................................................................................................. 4

REPORT BACKGROUND. ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4

REVIEW OVERVIEW........................................................................................................................................................................................ 5

2.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS........................................................................................................................................................7

3.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................8

GENERAL/OVERARCHING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................ 9

PLANETARY PROTECTION CATEGORIZATION: .........................................................................................................................................13

HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT..................................................................................................................................................................................15

PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVES AND MISSIONS.........................................................................................................................................17

ROBOTIC MARS SAMPLE RETURN..............................................................................................................................................................19

OCEAN WORLDS EXPLORATION.................................................................................................................................................................21

COSPAR........................................................................................................................................................................................................22

4.0 APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................................................23

APPENDIX A: PPIRB REVIEW OUTLINE...................................................................................................................................................23

APPENDIX B: PPIRB MEETING AGENDAS ...............................................................................................................................................26

APPENDIX C:NAC RECOMMENDATION AND NASA RESPONSE...........................................................................................................30

APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF CURRENT COSPAR GUIDELINES (KREMIK, ET. AL.).............................................................................31

APPENDIX E: CITED REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................45
2

List of Acronyms Used

AA Associate Administrator

BSL-4 Biosafety Level 4

COSPAR Committee on Space Research

COPUOS Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space

COR Contracting Officer’s Representative

CSA Canadian Space Agency

CTS Cornell Technical Services

ESA European Space Agency

ISECG International Space Exploration Coordination Group

IAU International Astronautical Union

ICS International Council for Science

ICSU International Council of Scientific Unions

IRB Independent Review Board

JAXA Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency

JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory

MMX Martian Moons eXploration

MSR Mars Sample Return

MSRF Mars Sample Receiving Facility

NAC NASA Advisory Council

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASEM National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine

NPR NASA Procedural Requirement

NPD NASA Policy Directive

OSMA Office of Safety and Mission Assurance

OST Outer Space Treaty

PP Planetary Protection

PPIRB Planetary Protection Independent Review Board

PPO Planetary Protection Office

SMD Science Mission Directorate

SWRI Southwest Research Institute

UN United Nations

UV Ultraviolet
3

Executive Summary

In mid-2019, NASA chartered this Planetary Protection Independent Review Board (PPIRB) to

assess how its Planetary Protection (PP) policies can be improved and streamlined, and how those

policies should adapt to the entry of new planetary mission opportunities and new players,

particularly in the private sector. The PPIRB was charged to complete its work in an approximately

90-day timeframe spanning July to September 2019. The chair and members offer to continue their

work, if desired by NASA, to delve into specific details, to brief stakeholders, or as otherwise

deemed necessary by the Agency.

This report and an associated briefing package to NASA constitute the deliverables from the

PPIRB’s work. This report provides a brief background on PP, summarizes the meetings and other

work the PPIRB performed, and makes a wide-ranging series of findings and recommendations to

NASA regarding extant and future PP policy. Those findings and recommendations, which concern

both PP processes and policy, are organized into topical categories; within each topical category,

findings and recommendations have been categorized as either major or supporting.

This report also contains a set of appendices that provide ancillary information. Outside of this

report, NASA, through its PPIRB Review Manager, Dr. T. Jens Feeley, has collected all of the

presentations made to the PPIRB during the span of its work.

The chair and members of the PPIRB note that many stakeholders who presented to the PPIRB

applauded NASA for its foresight in recognizing the changing PP landscape and soliciting the input

of a review to help chart a path forward. The PPIRB also applauds SMD’s and OSMA’s recent

revamping of the Planetary Protection Office (PPO) and the work of the new PP Officer, which has

increased communication, clarity, and responsiveness to community needs and concerns.

Key among the overarching recommendations that the PPIRB makes here is to regularly

reconstitute a similar activity every few years as the PP landscape evolves. Such regular reviews

should again independently assess how NASA’s PP policies can be improved and streamlined, and

how those policies should further adapt.

Numerous other major findings and recommendations, along with numerous supporting findings

and recommendations, are detailed below.
4

1.0 Background

Planetary Protection Background. In its essence, Planetary Protection (PP) refers to (i) managing 

contact between terrestrial life forms and organic material from celestial bodies as it relates to 

adversely affecting the scientific study of these bodies, called forward contamination; and (ii) 

mitigating harmful contact between pathogens or biology from other celestial bodies and terrestrial 

biology, called backward contamination. 

PP policy originated in the late 1950s. In 1967, the “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of 

States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” 

commonly referred to as the Outer Space Treaty (OST), was signed and ratified by the United States.

Article IX of the OST addresses harmful contamination of the Earth and other celestial bodies. Over 

time, the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), NASA, and others have developed PP guidelines to 

clarify how State Parties to the OST could address the harmful contamination aspects of Article IX. The 

COSPAR voluntary international guidelines and the NASA PP guidance stemmed from procedures and 

techniques originally developed for the Viking program, NASA’s first Mars lander mission. More than

two dozen U.S. National Academy of Sciences reports have previously reviewed and evaluated 

planetary protection.

NASA’s PP activities are centered in its Planetary Protection Office (PPO), which resides within the

Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA). The PPO categorizes missions NASA is involved in 

based on estimated threats they may pose to undesirable forward or backward contamination. NASA 

planetary protection policy then requires implementation of mitigation strategies to reduce the risk of 

forward or backward contamination. Neither COSPAR PP guidelines nor PP as implemented by NASA 

directly addresses or attempts to mitigate the ethical issues of forward contamination that could

threaten the biota of other celestial bodies. Nor does PP address historical site preservation or the 

implications of the human modification of bodies in the Solar System, for example for resource 

recovery.

Current NASA and COSPAR PP regimes were developed prior to the emergence of recent stakeholders,

including the growing capability for private sector entities to engage in planetary missions, although 

NASA and COSPAR PP guidelines are being updated to reflect these emerging missions.

In some parts of the private sector and within some NASA mission circles (particularly for missions in 

study or very early stages of formulation), there is significant confusion over many aspects of NASA PP 

policy and how it applies to increasingly diverse space activities. 

Report Background. On April 23, 2019, NASA announced the establishment of a Planetary Protection 

Independent Review Board (PPIRB).

1 The PPIRB was set up in response to a National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) report entitled “Review and Assessment of Planetary 

Protection Policy Development Processes,”

2 and a recommendation from the NASA Advisory Council

 

1 https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/915/new-planetary-protection-board-to-review-guidelines-for-futuresolar-system-and-beyond-exploration/ and included in the Appendices.

2 https://www.nap.edu/download/25172
5

(NAC).3 NASA concurred on the NAC recommendation and agreed to implement both that and

recommendations from the NASEM report through the following statement:

“The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) currently is establishing a Planetary 

Protection Independent Review Board, of approximately 10-15 members and short-term in 

nature, to assess and provide updates to biological contamination guidelines developed by 

the international Committee on Space Research (COSPAR). The Planetary Protection 

Independent Review Board's assessment will include analysis of the scientific, engineering, 

industrial, legal, and program management aspects of planetary protection. Results of the 

assessment will be documented in a non-consensus final report presentation, and the 

Independent Review Board will brief NASA, NASA advisory committees, and external 

stakeholders as appropriate.”

The complete PPIRB Review Outline is provided as Appendix A to this report. This document 

constitutes the PPIRB’s report to NASA in response to NASA’s charge to the PPIRB. A summary 

overview of the IRB process itself is provided next.

Review Overview. The PPIRB was tasked by the SMD Associate Administrator, Dr. Thomas 

Zurbuchen, on behalf of NASA, to conduct a quick-turnaround, 3-month, independent look at updating 

biological contamination guidelines developed by COSPAR in light of current plans for Mars sample 

return, emerging capabilities for private sector robotic missions, eventual human missions to Mars, 

and the exploration of the icy moons of the outer planets. This review was conducted between late 

June and late September of 2019.

The PPIRB explored various aspects of the scientific, engineering, industrial, legal, and program 

management aspects of planetary protection. Among many relevant documents, the PPIRB members 

read the NAC recommendation and the NASEM report as part of their review of previous work on this 

subject. As described below, the PPIRB also met four times in person, comprising 10 days of meetings 

and held 11 telecons to hear from PP experts and stakeholders and to make deliberations on findings 

and recommendations. 

The PPIRB membership, recruited by NASA, has experience in program and project management, 

engineering, planetary and astrobiological science, the commercial spaceflight sector, industry and 

legal matters relevant to planetary protection. 

The PPIRB membership consists of the following expert consultants:

Dr. Alan Stern, PPIRB Chair Southwest Research Institute

Dr. Edward (Beau) Bierhaus Lockheed Martin

Dr. Wendy Calvin University of Nevada, Reno

Dr. Amanda Hendrix Planetary Science Institute

Dr. Christopher H. House Pennsylvania State University

 

3 https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_response_to_nac_rec_2018-03-03-

cospar_tagged.pdf and included in the Appendices.
6

Dr. Hernan Lorenzi J. Craig Venter Institute

Mr. Tommy Sanford Commercial Spaceflight Federation

Dr. Erika Wagner Blue Origin

Dr. Andrew Westphal University of California at Berkeley

Mr. Charles Whetsel Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Mr. Paul Wooster SpaceX

Dr. T. Jens Feeley, Review Manager NASA Headquarters (Ex Officio)

The PPIRB members were vetted through Cornell Technical Services (CTS) and the PPIRB held an 

initial organizational telecon on June 28, 2019. The PPIRB then held weekly planning telecons when 

not meeting in person and received additional input from presenters at some of those weekly telecons. 

The PPIRB also met in person at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC, on July 10-11, at the Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, CA, on July 30-31, at the Southwest Research Institute 

(SWRI) in Boulder, CO, on August 5-7, and again at NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC, on 

September 4-5, to receive input from a variety of government, university and private sector

individuals and to deliberate on the findings and recommendations presented in this report.

The deliverables of the PPIRB, as described in the Review Outline in Appendix A, are as follows: 

1. A presentation to the Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, Dr.

Thomas Zurbuchen, and other NASA stakeholders summarizing the review results, held on

October 8, 2019, at NASA Headquarters in Washington DC; and,

2. This final report, which we note has no non-consensus elements.

Additionally, the PPIRB Chair has agreed to support future briefings to other stakeholders, including to

a joint meeting of committees or the full NASA Advisory Council and to COSPAR’s PP panel.

The agendas of the four PPIRB in-person meetings comprise Appendix B to this report. Appendix C 

contains recent NAC recommendations and NASA’s response that led to this PPIRB. Appendix D 

summarizes current COSPAR PP guidelines. Appendix E contains references cited in this report. 

This report was reviewed by NASA in advance of its release to ensure that the scope of this report 

meets the intent of the PPIRB’s charge and that this report’s findings and recommendations are clear. 

NASA did not review or provide feedback on the desirability or implementability of the findings and 

recommendations herein.
7

2.0 Glossary of Terms

Planetary Protection. The practices of reducing biological forward contamination that could affect 

astrobiological investigations on other celestial bodies and backward contamination that might have 

adverse impacts on Earth’s biosphere.

Forward Contamination. The delivery of terrestrial biology from Earth to other celestial bodies, and 

specifically, as it relates to adversely affecting the scientific study of these bodies.

Backward Contamination. Harmful contact between terrestrial biology and pathogens or biology 

arriving on Earth from other celestial bodies, generally in the context of a mission returning materials 

from such a body to the Earth.

Contamination Control. The practice of controlling the introduction and removal of unwanted 

materials that could impede the proper function of a system or component (e.g., clean rooms, visual 

inspection, offgassing minimization, flushing of fluid lines). While contamination control measures 

often serve to reduce the risk of forward contamination for planetary production, their ultimate goal is 

to improve system function.

Biota. In this report, “biota” is a generic term for all life forms, microorganisms, viruses, and prions 

that have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and 

reproduction. For the purposes of planetary protection, this is assumed to include all putative forms of 

exobiology, regardless of their composition or form.

Private Sector. In this report, the term “private sector” refers to products, services, or activities that 

have significant private capital at risk and their primary financial and management responsibility is 

within the private sector. The PPIRB intentionally utilizes the term “private sector” to capture the 

broad nature of private entities seeking to conduct space activities, ranging from privately funded nonprofits to for-profit commercial space companies. The PPIRB intends for the term “private sector” as 

used in this report be consistent with the term “commercial” as defined in the 2010 National Space 

Policy and the amended National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.

Robotic Missions. When used in this report, robotic missions are considered to be untended flights of

autonomous systems intended primarily for the conduct of science. This classification does not include

missions which are neither crewed nor of this sort, but which could support future crew or crewsupport vehicles (e.g., habitat placement, pre-staged cargo emplacement, test flights of human

vehicles).
8

3.0 Findings and Recommendations

The output of the PPIRB consists of a series of Planetary Protection (PP) findings and

recommendations pertinent to the next 3-5 years. These findings and recommendations are grouped

into the following topic categories:

 General/Overarching

 Planetary Protection Categorization

 Human Spaceflight

 Private Sector Initiatives and Missions

 Robotic Mars Sample Return

 Ocean Worlds Exploration

 COSPAR

As further described below, the longer-term evolution of technology and science will influence PP in

ways this PPIRB could not predict and will warrant future PP reviews.

The PPIRB findings and recommendations now follow, in turn, by category. The text of each finding

and recommendation is bolded; supporting text, where given, is provided without being bolded. No

indication of priority should be assumed by the order that findings and recommendations are

presented within a topic category, or by the order of the topic categories themselves.

However, within each topic category, the PPIRB findings and recommendations have been classified as

either Major or Supporting to indicate to stakeholders and Agency executives the PPIRB’s sense of

urgency and impact regarding each finding and recommendation. Major findings and

recommendations are further indicated by grey backgrounds.
9

General/Overarching Findings and Recommendations

Major Finding: With the advent of private sector robotic and human planetary missions, as well

as new ultra-low cost (e.g., CubeSat-class) planetary missions, the context in which PP is

conducted is profoundly and rapidly changing.

Major Finding: For planetary missions involving locations of high astrobiological potential, it is

essential that forward and backward contamination consideration be integral to mission

implementation. This applies to both government and private sector missions.

Supporting Finding: The PPIRB did not assess planetary exploration historical

site preservation or the implications of the human modification of celestial bodies in the Solar

System, for example, for resource recovery.

Supporting Finding: The scope of Planetary Protection landscape is complex, broad, nuanced,

and sometimes politically charged. The PPIRB could only evaluate it at a top level in the time

and resources allocated for our review.

Major Recommendation: Because of advances in knowledge and technologies since

the Viking era, NASA's PP policies and implementation procedures should be

reassessed. PP technology and relevant science disciplines are progressing rapidly; thus,

the PPO should refresh its knowledge of the state of the art in PP science and technology,

and apply this knowledge to advance, and where feasible, simplify PP implementation. This

likely requires additional PPO funding to be effective.

Major Recommendation: Owing to the changing PP context and the rapid advancement of

scientific, technological, and private sector planetary mission capabilities, NASA should

reassess its PP guidelines at least twice per decade with an IRB-like body that includes

representatives of all major stakeholder communities. The PPIRB findings and

recommendations presented in this report apply to the current era and generally are made with a

3-5 year horizon in mind.

Major Recommendation: NASA should establish a standing forum for the discussion

and resolution of emergent PP issues that includes input from government, private

sector, and perhaps even non-U.S. private sector enterprises.

Major Finding: The PPIRB applauds SMD’s and OSMA’s recent revamping of the PPO and the

work of the new PP Officer, which has increased communication, clarity, and responsiveness to

community needs and concerns.

Major Recommendation: NASA should establish explicit processes such as an ongoing

process of independent review to ensure that PPO policies and procedures are consistently

applied regardless of specific PPO personnel.
10

Major Finding: There is a general lack of clarity concerning PP requirements and

implementation processes, particularly for non-NASA missions; this impedes the development

of private sector planetary exploration.

Major Recommendation: NASA should clarify its policy for exercising PP authority over

primarily non-NASA space activities that have some level of NASA involvement.

Major Recommendation: To further encourage the development of private sector planetary

activities, NASA should offer a greater degree of PP expertise and tools to new and emerging

actors in planetary exploration.

Major Finding: The late addition of PP requirements to some projects has been costly and

inefficient to implement.

Major Recommendation: To reduce project inefficiencies, PP requirements should be

finalized early in mission formulation and should avoid past practices of adding new or 

unexpected PP requirements, including in categorization letters.

Major Recommendation: PP requirements on missions should be written to define PP intent,

rather than detailed implementation methods, thereby allowing projects to select and/or

develop implementations most suitable to meet their PP requirements from a systems

standpoint.

Major Finding: Although NASA is not a regulatory agency, the Agency can likely affect control

over non-NASA U.S. missions by linking PP compliance to eligibility for current or future NASA

business or NASA support. However, overreaching application of such control could result in

reduced opportunities for collaboration with private sector missions.

Supporting Recommendation: Policy regarding such application of Agency authority

to affect PP implementation should be carefully reviewed above the PPO level.

Supporting Finding: COSPAR PP guidelines have evolved to be an internationally recognized,

voluntary standard for protection of scientific interests in celestial bodies. Adherence to the

COSPAR guidelines has been considered an acceptable mechanism for establishing a State

party’s compliance with the harmful contamination aspects in Article IX of the OST. Adherence

to COSPAR PP guidelines have constituted one type of mechanism for establishing compliance

with Article IX, but this is not the only such compliance mechanism; other mechanisms that

may be more appropriate also exist.

Supporting Finding: For many of NASA’s scientifically driven planetary exploration missions to

astrobiologically relevant targets, scientific cleanliness requirements often exceed PP

bioburden requirements.
11

Supporting Finding: Anachronistic, and sometimes unrealistic, PP requirements (e.g., delivery

of <1 viable organism to Europan liquid water for Europa Clipper) have driven a great deal of

costly and sometimes questionable effort, often involving requirements or implementation

waivers.

Supporting Finding: The PPIRB applauds and encourages flexible ways to address PP intent

using novel methods.

Supporting Recommendation: The PPO should exploit new discoveries and new

technologies to better categorize exploration targets, create better forward and

backward PP implementation protocols, and lower PP cost and schedule impacts on

projects.

Supporting Recommendation: For forward contamination, NASA PP policy should

move beyond exclusive adherence to spore counts, which is an outdated legacy of the

1970s Viking era. PP policy should encourage the use of proven modern techniques

and well-established genomic tools for monitoring and characterization of bioburden

of cleanroom facilities and flight hardware. NASA should also encourage the broader

use of probabilistic models of the risk of “harmful” forward contamination based on

likely scenarios and acceptable risk outcomes.

Supporting Recommendation: For both forward and backward contamination

requirements, NASA should continue to allow novel approaches, such as crediting for

time spent in the harsh space environment or on harsh planetary surfaces (e.g., UV,

radiation, temperature extremes, lack of liquid water). To enable this, NASA should

support quantitative laboratory studies of such approaches to demonstrate

quantitative PP credits.

Supporting Recommendation: NASA’s PP requirements should be completely

specified in NASA Procedural Requirements (NPRs)/NASA Policy Directives (NPDs) so

that projects subject to NASA PP requirements know what to expect and can better

plan in advance to a known, fixed set of project requirements.

Supporting Recommendation: The PPO should implement both well-documented and

transparent PP requirements and requirements waiver processes for all missions

with NASA involvement.

Supporting Recommendation: NASA should provide external stakeholders with clear

information and better insight and outreach on its PP standards and processes. This

should include a rollout plan for new PP processes, followed by regular stakeholder

engagement opportunities to ensure widespread awareness and understanding of

PP standards and processes.
12

Supporting Finding: Without further changes to streamline low-cost mission PP

implementation, ultra-low cost planetary missions (e.g., CubeSats) will likely have a PP

implementation cost burden that is a larger percentage of their total budget than larger

missions, which in turn could threaten their low cost, particularly for those missions beyond PP

Category II.

Supporting Recommendation: NASA should assess how to streamline PP implementation for

ultra-low cost planetary missions.

Supporting Finding: It is impractical for launch providers or satellite hosts to definitively 

determine the biological content of every payload. Biological materials intentionally added by 

a bad actor are especially challenging for launch providers to monitor or report, as they can be 

further obscured by falsified verification or inaccurate documentation. The recent experience in 

which a launch customer placed tardigrades and other biological samples on the SpaceIL Beresheet

lunar lander is illustrative. By the Moon’s Category II PP designation, it is likely that a payload license 

would have been readily granted had the bioload been self-reported; however, the lack of such 

reporting created new issues relating to launch licensing. 

Supporting Recommendation: Breaches of PP reporting or other requirements should be 

handled via sanctions that hold the root perpetrator accountable, rather than increasing the 

verification and regulatory burden on all actors.

Supporting Finding: Space Act Agreements and some NASA contracts require NASA 8020.12

PP compliance, which in turn invokes COSPAR policy/guidelines.

Supporting Recommendation: These contractual requirements should be reviewed by NASA

to simplify compliance where possible and to avoid overconstraining the means of meeting

NASA intent.

Supporting Recommendation: Whenever updating U.S. PP policy and implementation

practices, the U.S. government should work with the United Nations (UN) Committee on the

Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) to communicate new U.S. PP approaches to the

international community, share best practices, and encourage the international community

to address such issues.
13

Planetary Protection Categorization:

Major Finding: As more is learned about each celestial body, more detailed and tailored

approaches to forward contamination become advisable. These include variable categorization

based on surface/subsurface location, where and how many times past missions have

investigated the body, and the survivability and propagation of terrestrial organisms in the

body’s environments.

Major Recommendation: NASA should study how much of the Moon’s surface and subsurface

could be designated PP Category I versus Category II. Establishing different categories for

different locations on the Moon could significantly simplify and enhance exploration

opportunities for both the civil and private sectors. An object that has “no direct interest for

understanding the process of chemical evolution or the origin of life” is designated Category I. The

Moon is currently classified Category II—of “significant” interest to origins of life questions but

with “low risk” that contamination will compromise future science. In general, however, scientific

interest in the Moon is not focused on the origin of life or its building blocks. Other than locations

where ice is known to exist near the lunar poles (which could remain Category II), most locations

on and inside the Moon are not relevant to questions of the chemical evolution leading to or the

origin of life itself.

Major Recommendation: 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 transport, survival and amplification in order to reassess the risk of survival 

and propagation of terrestrial biota on Mars. All past U.S. landed missions have been treated as

though there is a “significant” chance that terrestrial organisms can survive and be transported to

areas where life or biosignature detection experiments would be performed. Rummel et al. (2014) 

have shown that many areas of the surface are not locations of PP concern. Similarly, although there 

may be subsurface regions that continue to warrant additional special PP consideration, this need 

not be the case for all subsurface regions. NASA should revisit the categorization of areas that are

not considered to be “Special Regions” and determine limits on terrestrial bioload transport and

amplification from current landing sites.

Major Recommendation: NASA should consider establishing (i) high priority astrobiology

zones, i.e., regions considered to be of high scientific priority for identifying extinct or extant

life, and (ii) human exploration zones, i.e., regions where the larger amounts of biological

contamination inevitably associated with human exploration missions, as compared to

robotic scientific missions, will be acceptable.

Supporting Recommendation: In cases of missions to Solar System destinations

where there is a large population of similar Category I and II objects (e.g., comets,

asteroids, Kuiper Belt Objects), NASA should allow classification of individual objects

as Category I to simplify missions to them. Just as the lunar and Martian surfaces in their

entirety do not need to bear the same PP classification, in the case of small bodies where

there are numerous potential targets, the contamination of any individual does not cause

significant contamination to the class as a whole. If chemical evolution or origin of life

experiments are planned for such objects, there are myriad to choose from that will not

have been previously visited by robotic probes.
14

Supporting Finding: Various scientific studies4,

5,6,7 suggest that the survival and amplification

of terrestrial biota are unlikely on the Martian surface, which would support classification of

much of the Martian surface as Category II.

 

4 Pavlov, A.A., Vasilyev, G., Ostryakov, V.M., Pavlov, A.K., Mahaffy, P., 2012. Degradation of the organic

molecules in the shallow subsurface of Mars due to irradiation by cosmic rays. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39 (13).

5 Khodadad, C.L., Wong, G.M., James, L.M., Thakrar, P.J., Lane, M.A., Catechis, J.A., Smith, D.J., 2017. Stratosphere

conditions inactivate bacterial endospores from a Mars spacecraft assembly facility. Astrobiology 17 (4), 337–

350.

6 Shotwell, R.F., Hays, L.E., Beaty, D.W., Goreva, Y., Kieft, T.L., Mellon, M.T., Moridis, G., Peterson, L.D. and

Spycher, N., 2019. The potential for an off nominal landing of a multimission radioisotope thermoelectric

generator-powered spacecraft on Mars to induce an artificial special region. Astrobiology (in press) V. 19, #

11, DOI: 10.1089/ast.2017.1688 .

7 Rummel, J.D., Beaty, D.W., Jones, M.A., Bakermans, C., Barlow, N.G., Boston, P.J., Chevrier, V.F., Clark, B.C., de

Vera, J.P.P., Gough, R. V., Hallsworth, J.E., et al., 2014. A new analysis of Mars ‘‘special regions”: findings of the

second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group (SR-SAG2). Astrobiology 14 (11), 887–968.
15

Human Spaceflight

Major Finding: Human missions to Mars will create new opportunities for science and

exploration. The presence of humans is likely to enable exploration and science on Mars at a pace

previously unachievable by robotic missions, and should enable more complex surface activities than

have previously been possible robotically.

Major Finding: PP planning for human missions to Mars and the communication of those plans

to the public are presently immature.

Major Recommendation: NASA should expeditiously develop PP guidelines for human

missions to Mars, whether those missions are conducted by NASA, other international

agencies, or private entities. We note that the title of NPD 8020.12 includes the phrase “For

Robotic Extraterrestrial Missions”, acknowledging the implicit need for a future PP policy

addressing non-robotic missions. A subset of future Mars missions are expected to be neither

crewed missions nor traditional scientific robotic missions, but missions of other types that could

involve crew or crew-support vehicles (e.g., habitat placement, pre-staged cargo emplacement, test

flights of human vehicles). Explicit clarification is needed as to which policies apply to each type of

Mars mission, including such un-crewed, non- or not-primarily science-driven activities.

Major Recommendation: NASA should begin planning for the public communication of all

aspects of PP planning for human missions to Mars sooner rather than later, and should pay

special attention to public PP concerns, similarly to NASA’s proactive treatment of NASA

missions involving radioisotope power systems.

Major Finding: Human missions to Mars will inevitably introduce orders of magnitude more

terrestrial microorganisms to Mars than robotic missions have done or will do. This is especially

true when taking into account highly probable off-nominal events during human exploration (e.g.,

inadvertent venting or leaks, off-nominal landings).

Major Finding: NASA’s current policies for robotic Category V Restricted Earth Return from

Mars appear to be unachievable for human missions returning from Mars. Specifically,

requirements such as “No uncontained hardware that contacted Mars, directly or indirectly, may be

returned to Earth unless sterilized” and “The mission and the spacecraft design shall provide a method

to ‘break the chain of contact’ with Mars” appear to drive towards implementation approaches that are

difficult, if not impossible, for human missions and their hardware to achieve.

Major Recommendation: Regarding the return of humans and equipment from Mars, NASA

should invest in developing more informed, backward contamination PP criteria,

considering protection of Earth’s biosphere, the feasibility of mission implementation, and

the potential for in situ hazard characterization on Mars. As discussed for robotic Mars sample

return below, these policies should take into consideration current understanding of the ongoing

natural transport of material from Mars to Earth since the formation of the planets ~4.5 billion

years ago.
16

Major Recommendation: Special attention should be paid to assess how astrobiological

research can be carried out in the presence of human activities. Lessons can be learned from

similar activities conducted in locales such as Antarctica and the Atacama Desert. Examples could

include pristine sub-sampling, extracted from within larger samples whose exterior surfaces may

be contaminated, and the ability to perform subsurface sampling without introducing

contamination. This activity should take into account other findings and recommendations in this

report related to the application of different categorizations to different portions of the Martian

surface and subsurface and the application of modern PP techniques. NASA should engage

appropriate international groups such as COSPAR and the International Space Exploration

Coordination Group (ISECG) to engage in similar planning.

Supporting Recommendation: In considering crew return from Mars, NASA should

assess the acceptability of the multi-month return trajectory as a PP quarantine and

evaluation period, potentially simplifying terrestrial quarantine scenarios,

requirements, and timescales.

Supporting Recommendation: NASA should review COSPAR’s humans to Mars

principles and guidelines to assess which should be followed, discarded, or updated

for NASA’s first human Mars expedition.

Supporting Finding: Terrestrial biology has been transported to Mars by previous

robotic missions at discrete locations, although at low levels as compared to what is

likely on future crewed and crew-related missions. The impact that these already

transported organisms have had on any global Mars ecosystem is unknown but is likely

to be minimal. Since it is impractical to completely sterilize all spacecraft materials, it is likely

that terrestrial biota, in the form of bacteria, spores, etc., survived the transit to Mars on past

robotic missions. Further study and experiments would be needed to address whether or not

terrestrial biota have been able to survive on Mars, replicate, or be transported beyond the

constrained locations where these spacecraft landed or crashed on the surface of Mars.
17

Private Sector Initiatives and Missions

Major Finding: In addition to NASA’s world-leading civil space exploration capabilities, the

United States now has a vibrant, highly capable private space sector. Through rapid innovation

and cutting-edge technology, this space sector is expanding access to space for both private and

government users, unleashing new robotic and crewed exploration opportunities in the Solar

System.

Major Finding: Through existing authorization mechanisms under current Federal regulatory

frameworks, the U.S. Government licenses the launch and re-entry of private space vehicles,

including those for beyond Earth orbit activities. Regarding PP, these licensing mechanisms

could be improved to relieve administrative burdens and address misperceptions of legal

uncertainty for private sector space activities, including private sector robotic and human

planetary missions that do not have significant NASA involvement.

Major Recommendation: In addition to balancing the needs of science and exploration, PP

policy should also recognize that it is both a NASA and a national objective to encourage

private sector space initiatives and commercial robotic and human planetary missions. The

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as amended, explicitly states that one of NASA’s

functions is to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of

space.”8Additionally, the 2010 National Space Policy expressly directs Federal agencies to

“minimize, as much as possible, the regulatory burden for commercial space activities” and to

“refrain from conducting United States Government space activities that preclude, discourage, or

compete with U.S. commercial space activities.”9

Major Recommendation: PP–related authorization and supervision across the U.S.

government should be implemented in a transparent, timely, and predictable manner,

minimizing costs and burdens on private sector activities where possible.

Major Recommendation: Regarding PP, NASA should work in support of the Administration’s

efforts, and as appropriate with the Congress and private sector stakeholders, to enable

private sector space initiatives that do not have significant NASA involvement.

Supporting Finding: Several private space companies are rapidly advancing technologies and

plans for robotic and human planetary missions, including plans to land cargo and humans on

the surface of the Moon and Mars. These developments provide important considerations for

updating NASA and other U.S. government PP policy.

 

8 See https://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf

9 See https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf
18

Supporting Recommendation: For space activities without significant NASA

involvement (including private sector robotic and human planetary missions), NASA

should work with the Administration, the Congress, and private sector space

stakeholders to identify the appropriate U.S. Government agency to implement a PP

regulatory framework. This regulatory framework should take into account the nation’s

exploration, scientific, commercial, and national security interests, and should provide

external stakeholders with clear information, including better insight and outreach on PP

standards and processes.

Supporting Recommendation: The U.S. should continue to encourage international PP

forums to include private sector stakeholder participation.
19

Robotic Mars Sample Return

Major Finding: Martian material has been naturally transported to Earth for billions of

years.

10,11Current Mars Sample Return (MSR) requirements do not take the natural transport and

survival of Mars material into account. Further, quantitative PP risk requirements, which are based on

engineering requirements, lack a fully rational basis considering this history. In contrast, the National

Academies' Consensus Study Report on Planetary Protection Classification of Sample Return Missions

from the Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) took into account the natural flux of Martian material to

Earth in their recommendation that MMX samples returned from the Martian moons be designated as

unrestricted. That report noted that the natural flux of material from Mars to Earth is orders of

magnitude greater than the flux from any conceivable robotic sample return.

Major Recommendation: NASA’s MSR PP approach should take into account the findings of

the recent National Academies' Consensus Study Report on sample return from the Martian

moons. In particular, the risk of adverse effects Martian material poses to the terrestrial biosphere

should be re-evaluated in light of the ongoing, established, natural transport of Martian material to

Earth.

Major Finding: As the first restricted Earth return since Apollo, MSR will be a uniquely high

profile mission. Significant effort is being put into the MSR architectures to ensure there will be no

harmful interference with Earth's biosphere. This includes NASA work (alongside international

partners) to “break the chain of contact” with the Mars environment during sample collection

procedures on Mars 2020, the Sample Retrieval Lander and return procedures with the Earth Return

Orbiter.

Major Recommendation: Planning for a Mars Sample Receiving Facility (MSRF) should be

accelerated, or at least maintained on schedule, and should also be kept as pragmatic and

streamlined as possible so that it does not unduly drive the schedule or cost of MSR.

Major Recommendation: NASA should begin work with other government agencies to

develop a MSR PP public outreach, communications, and engagement plan. Government

agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration have

significant experience in crafting public communications policies that could be beneficial to NASA in

educating the public about the realities of MSR missions.

Supporting Finding. Significant work is being done to study the MSRF and whether an entirely

new facility should be built, and where, or whether the MSRF should be an add-on to an existing

Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) facility.

Supporting Finding: Some types of sterilization of Mars samples are antagonistic to many

important types of scientific measurements.

 

10 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. Planetary Protection Classification of

Sample Return Missions from the Martian Moons. Washington, DC: The National Academies

Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25357 .

11 Mileikowsky, C. et al., Icarus. 2000 June;145(2):391-427.
20

Supporting Recommendation: NASA should carefully trade the implications of the

degree and types of PP sterilization techniques for Mars samples with the

implications for various types of science measurements.

Supporting Recommendation: NASA should continue to engage experts from the

medical, pharmaceutical, and personal care industries to advise on effective

sterilization protocols. Such engagement provides meaningful insights from adjacent

fields, demonstrates NASA's due diligence to the public, and offers lessons on effective

communication to non-experts regarding safety for both robotic sample return and for

future human missions to Mars.
21

Ocean Worlds Exploration

Major Finding: The fraction of terrestrial microorganisms in spacecraft bioburdens that has the 

potential to survive and amplify in ocean worlds is likely to be extremely small.

12,13 Further, 

any putative indigenous life in subsurface oceans on Europa, Enceladus, or Titan is highly 

unlikely to have a common origin with terrestrial life. Any such life would be readily 

distinguishable from terrestrial microorganisms using modern biochemical techniques. As a 

consequence of these findings, the current bioburden requirements for Europa and Enceladus 

missions (i.e., <1 viable microorganism) appear to be unnecessarily conservative.

Major Recommendation: The PP requirements for ocean worlds exploration should be 

reassessed in light of this finding.

Supporting Finding: Category IV is currently assigned to landed ocean world missions 

when there is a significant probability of contamination of the liquid interior oceans. 

However, the situation for each ocean world environment is very different and limited 

information exists for each of these worlds regarding ice shell composition and 

thickness, ocean composition and habitability, interfaces/communication between the 

surface and ocean, and any transport of material across the surface. For example, the 

differences between the environments of Enceladus, Europa and Titan are significant. The 

subsurface ocean within Enceladus is considered by many scientists to be habitable, and 

fractures at its South Pole provide direct access to its ocean. In contrast, Europa's ice shell is 

thought to vary from a few km to ~tens of km thick; in some regions, liquid lenses may be 

present within the ice shell, produced by local heating and melting. Titan's ocean, by contrast, 

lies below an organic-covered ice shell ~100 km thick and is thus largely inaccessible. Impacts 

into Titan's icy crust can generate melt, creating a transient liquid water environment in which 

the liquid water can mix with Titan's surface organics; previously melted deposits are expected 

near Dragonfly's ultimate target, Selk Crater.

Supporting Recommendation: NASA should study transport, survival and 

amplification mechanisms of contamination individually for each ocean world. Such 

studies should include transport both laterally and vertically, through the ice shell and/or 

cracks into the ocean and/or subsurface pockets of liquid water, to assess the risk that

Earth-based biology could be transported to a liquid water zone of an ocean world and 

reproduce. For example, the current metric guiding Europa Lander PP is the requirement of 

<1 viable organism delivered to a liquid body. These stringent numerical limits force 

requirements that can be unattainable, do not use the current best practices in industry of a 

probabilistic approach to contamination and risk mitigation, and have the potential to drive 

mission cost and schedule increases. Studies that examine transport, survival 

and amplification of relevant forward organic contaminants will inform whether 

contamination at one lander site provides a significant risk to future science conducted 

at other locations on the surface or sub-surface.

 

12 M.T. La Duc, A.E. Dekas, S. Osman, C. Moissl, D. Newcombe, and K. Venkateswaran, Isolation and 

characterization of bacteria capable of tolerating the extreme conditions of clean-room environments, 

Applied Environmental Microbiology 73:2600-2611, 2007.

13 National Research Council. 2012. Assessment of Planetary Protection Requirements for Spacecraft 

Missions to Icy Solar System Bodies. Washington, DC: The National Academies 

Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13401.
22

COSPAR

Major Finding: There is a lack of consensus as to how and when the Outer Space Treaty has legal 

relevance to non-governmental entities.

Major Finding: The process for incorporating recommendations from this report that NASA

accepts into COSPAR guidelines is not well defined. The PPIRB has made a number of

recommendations to modernize and clarify PP guidelines. For example, it has recommended a focus on

identification of the top-level forward contamination requirements rather than specification of specific

engineering implementations to be taken, as well as encouraging the use of modern molecular

biological approaches to PP, such as metagenomic analyses of cleanroom samples. We also

recommended revision or elimination of obsolete or unnecessarily conservative PP guidelines.

Similarly, clarification and streamlining of COSPAR PP guidelines will encourage planetary mission

activities by all, including non-traditional entities in other nations.

Supporting Finding: The term “Planetary Protection” has been used by different

communities to include a variety of topics. This has caused confusion with respect to the

primary responsibility of governmental PP oversight and the intent of past practices.

“Planetary Protection” has been used in different contexts including bioload guidelines for

spacecraft, the search for life beyond Earth, scientific studies focused on the survivability of

microbes in space, philosophical positions related to the implications of the possibility of a

separate origin of life within our Solar System and potential harm to putative non-terrestrial

life forms or ecosystems, and contamination concerns for specific astrobiological

investigations. Misunderstanding about the intent of the past PP guidelines has caused some

parties to assume that COSPAR PP is intended to protect possible extraterrestrial life from

competition from Earth’s microbiota. This has, in turn, resulted in an incorrect assumption by

some that future human exploration is at odds with original COSPAR intent.

Supporting Recommendation: NASA should broadly communicate that its PP policy is

consistent with COSPAR history, and is specifically focused on reducing biological

forward contamination that could interfere with future astrobiological investigations

and backward contamination that might have adverse impacts on Earth’s biosphere.

Supporting Recommendation: To reduce confusion, NASA should develop and then

use a standard glossary of PP related terminology, including for example “spacecraft

cleanliness,” “forward biological transport,” and “backward biological transport.”
23

4.0 Appendices

A. PPIRB Review Outline

B. PPIRB In-Person Meeting Agendas

C. NAC Recommendation and NASA Response

D. Current COSPAR PP Guidelines Summary

E. Cited References

Appendix A: PPIRB Review Outline

Planetary Protection Independent Review Board (PPIRB)

Review Outline

I. Background

Planetary Protection is the practice of protecting solar system bodies from contamination by Earth

life and protecting Earth from possible life forms and otherwise harmful materials that may be

returned from bodies in space. NASA’s Office of Planetary Protection promotes the responsible

exploration of the solar system by implementing and developing efforts that protect the science,

explored environments and Earth.

A report issued in 1958 by a subcommittee of the International Council of Scientific Unions

described the first code-of-conduct for Planetary Protection and recommended that the newlyformed Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) should resume responsibility for matters of

Planetary Protection; and in 1967 the Outer Space Treaty formalized the legal requirements for

Nations to avoid ‘harmful contamination’ of celestial bodies and ‘adverse changes in the

environment of the Earth.’ The COSPAR guidelines have been updated in the interim and have been

used by all spacefaring nations to guide their preparations for encounters with solar system bodies.

Recent reviews by the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) committee and the National Academies raised 

concerns about whether advancements in science and engineering are outpacing those COSPAR 

guidelines, and these reviews also raised concerns about whether the guidelines are outdated in 

regard to the growing interest from commercial and private groups in exploration and utilization of 

Mars and other bodies in space. 

II. Scope

The Planetary Protection Independent Review Board (PPIRB) will look at updating biological

contamination guidelines developed by the international Committee on Space Research

(COSPAR). We anticipate engagement on a weekly or biweekly basis over a period of about 3

months and estimate the level of effort to be 3 to 4 hours per week plus the possibility of travel.

III. Study Management

The convening authority for the PPIRB is NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) Associate

Administrator (AA). As such, the PPIRB will report to the SMD AA. This Independent Review shall

be organized by Cornell Technical Services (CTS) and will be comprised of members with

considerable current experience in program and project management, engineering, science,

industry and legal matters relevant to planetary protection.
24

The SMD AA will assure the necessary support for the PPIRB. The PPIRB Chair and the SMD

Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) will support all activities of the PPIRB and coordinate

production and ensure the quality of review deliverables. The SMD COR will ensure that the

information needs of the review members are met. The non-consensus final report will be verbally

presented to the SMD AA and other NASA stakeholders, followed by the provision of a nonconsensus final written report.

IV. Notional Schedule

The review panel will conduct the assessment over a 12-week period from initial meeting to

completion of the non-consensus final report. The final schedule will be determined following

discussions between the PPIRB, SMD AA and other NASA stakeholders.

Pre-Work Select and appoint panel members; PPIRB members will

attend all meetings from week 1 to week 12

#1: Jun 24-28 Organizational Telecon (2-hour); review background

materials; June 28@11am-1pm EASTERN

#2: Jul 1-5

#3: Jul 8-12 Face-to-face Meeting at NASA HQ in DC: July 10-11

(half-day on 7/11)

#4: Jul 15-19

#5: Jul 22-26

#6: Jul 29- 

Aug 2

Fact-finding trip (Los Angeles and Pasadena, CA): July 30-31

#7: Aug 5-9 Fact-finding trip (Denver and Boulder, CO): August 5-7

Develop and discuss draft findings for report; decide on

writing assignments

#8: Aug 12-16 Draft any final questions for further discussion

#9: Aug 19-23 Work on writing assignments and internal review; submit

draft report to NASA and NASA review of draft report

#10: Aug 26-

30

Review NASA comments on draft report; close out remaining

questions and revise draft report; and NASA reviews revised

draft report and submits final comments

#11: Sept 2-6 Complete draft report

#12: Sept 9-

13

Brief non-consensus final report to SMD AA and other NASA

stakeholders in Washington, DC

#13: Sept 16-

20

Prepare non-consensus final report; print & deliver to SMD

AA
25

V. Deliverables

 Presentation to SMD AA and other NASA stakeholders summarizing the review results.

 Non-consensus final report with observations, findings, concerns, and Recommendations

consistent with Section II above.

VI. Personnel

The PPIRB membership includes:

Dr. Alan Stern SWRI, Chair

Dr. Edward (Beau) Bierhaus Lockheed Martin

Dr. Wendy Calvin University of Nevada-Reno

Dr. Amanda Hendrix Planetary Science Institute

Dr. Chris House Pennsylvania State University

Dr. Hernan Lorenzi J. Craig Venter Institute

Mr. Tommy Sanford Commercial Spaceflight

Federation

Dr. Erika Wagner Blue Origin

Dr. Andrew Westphal University of California at Berkeley

Mr. Charles Whetsel Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Mr. Paul Wooster SpaceX

Ex Officio (Review Manager): Dr. T. Jens Feeley

Approved:

Thomas Zurbuchen

Associate Administrator

Science Mission Directorate
26

Appendix B: PPIRB Meeting Agendas

Agenda: July 10, 2019 (NASA Headquarters)

Time Presenter(s) Affiliation Topic(s)

9:00-10am Thomas Zurbuchen

& Alan Stern NASA, SWRI

Introductions/Overview of

the PPIRB

10-10:30 Members --- Administrative discussion

10:30-11 Michael Gold Maxar

NASA Advisory Council

Recommendation:

11-Noon Joe Alexander &

David Smith

Consultant,

NASEM

NASEM Report on PP Policy

Development

Noon to 1pm Members --- Lunch

1-2 Lori Glaze NASA NASA Planetary Science Plans

2-3 Marc Neveu Habitable Zones Overview

3-4 Jim Green NASA

COSPAR Planetary Protection

Panel

4-5 Members Discussion

Agenda: July 11, 2019 (NASA Headquarters)

Time Presenter(s) Affiliation Topic(s)

8:30-

11:00am Lisa Pratt NASA

Current State of Planetary

Protection at NASA

11-Noon Marshall Smith NASA

Plans for Human Exploration

of Mars

Noon12:30pm

Members

---

Discussion/Plans for Site

Visits

Agenda: July 30, 2019 (JPL and LASP)

Time Presenter(s) Affiliation Topic(s)

8-8:15am Charles Whetsel JPL

Intro, Logistics, Agenda

Review

8:15-9:00 Charles Whetsel JPL

View Mars 2020 Integration &

Test

9-9:30 Scott Hubbard Stanford

University

Perspectives on science and

non-governmental aspects of

PP

9:30-10 Alvin Smith, John

Logar

JPL, Johnson

& Johnson

NASA Sterilization Working

Group

10-10:30 Barry Goldstein, et.

al. JPL Europa Clipper Project

10:30-11 Members --- Break & Discussion
27

11-11:30 James ‘Nick’

Benardini, et. al. JPL

InSight/PI mission

perspective

11:30-Noon James ‘Nick’

Benardini JPL

Metagenomics Inventory

Research

Noon12:45pm

John McNamee, et al. JPL

Mars 2020 experience with

PP

12:45-1:30 Lunch ---- ----

1:30-2:30 Dave Beaty JPL Special Topic

2:30-3

Adam Schilffarth Xplore

Private sector experience and

views

3-3:30 Members ---- Break & Discussion

3:30-4 Dianne Newman

CalTech

Ongoing research including

identifying meaningful

biomarkers

4-4:30 Kris Zacny Honeybee

Robotics

Drilling, containment, Europa

Lander sampling

4:30-5 Members Discussion

Agenda: July 31, 2019 (JPL & SpaceX)

Time Presenter(s) Affiliation Topic(s)

8-8:30am Pete Worden Breakthrough

Foundation

Enceladus or Europa mission

plans

8:30-9:30 Margarita Marinova SpaceX

SpaceX plans for future

missions; Red Dragon

experience

9:30-10 Members --- Break & Discussion

10-10:30 Carol Stoker & Penny

Boston NASA

the requirements and

payload design for robotic

life detection in advance of

human exploration

10:30-11 Kevin Hand, et al. JPL

Europa Lander sampling,

technologies for ocean

worlds

11-Noon

Jen Eigenbrode,

Alfonso Davila (and

Chris McKay)

NASA

Proposed missions to special

regions on Mars and to

Enceladus

Noon1:00pm Rob Manning JPLWorking Lunch: discuss

followup from yesterday

1-2:00 Brian Muirhead, et al. JPL MSR Overview

2-2:30 Discussion

---

Findings and

Recommendations; plans for

Colorado trip

2:30-3:30 Members --- Travel to SpaceX

3:30-5 Members --- Tour SpaceX
28

Agenda: August 6, 2109 (SWRI & Lockheed Martin)

Time Presenter(s) Affiliation Topic(s)

8-10:45am Members

---

Discuss potential findings,

Recommendations, writing

assignments

10:45-

12:15pm Members --- Travel to Lockheed Martin

12:15-1:30 Members --- Lunch

1:00-1:10 Stu Spath

Lockheed

Martin (LM) Welcome and introductions

1:10-1:30 Dave Murrow LM

LM experience with missions

that require planetary

protection, and future plans

1:30-2:15 Joe Witte LM

mechanics of planetary

protection

2:15-2:30 Cat Riegle LM Contamination control

2:30-3:00 Members LM Discussion

2:55-3:00 n/a LM Break before tour

3:00-4:30 various LM

tour of facilities used for

spacecraft build, test, and

operation

4:30-5:45 Travel to Boulder

Agenda: August 7, 2019 (SWRI)

Time Presenter(s) Affiliation Topic(s)

8am-2pm Members Discussion

Agenda: September 4, 2019 (NASA Headquarters)

Time Presenter(s) Affiliation Topic(s)

8-8:15am Stern & Feeley SWRI & NASA Overview and Agenda

8:15-9:15 Lal & Watson

STPI & OSTP

OSTP-STPI report on

Planetary Protection-related

interviews

9:15-9:45 Members Discussion

9:45-10:15 Diane Howard NOAA

NOAA's role in interagency

process

10:15-

10:55

Patricia M.

Beauchamp JPL

Technology for Europa

missions

10:50-11 Members --- Break
29

11-11:45

Alison Murray DSI

utilizing molecular biological

and genomic approaches to

describe the diversity of life

11:45-

1:00pm Members --- Lunch

1-1:30 Phil Brinkman FAA FAA role and perspectives

1:30-2 Anne Sweet NASA NASA-internal process

2-2:30 Marc Timm NASA

Red Dragon and Moon

Express experience

2:30-3

Gabriel Swiney DOS

International Law and Outer

Space Treaty

3-3:30 Members ---

Break / Discussion /

Contingency

3:30-4

Ann M. Zulkosky

Lockheed

Martin

Perspectives on congressional

interest (prior job) and

Lockheed experience

4-5:15 Tom Hammond HSCI

Congressional perspective

(House Science Minority staff)

5:15-5:30 Members Discussion

Agenda: September 5, 2019 (NASA Headquarters)

Time Presenter(s) Affiliation Topic(s)

8am-Noon Members Discussion
30

Appendix C: NAC Recommendation and NASA Response

NASA Advisory Council Recommendation

COSPAR

2018-03-03 (RPC-03)

Recommendation:

NASA should establish a multi-disciplinary task force of experts from industry, the scientific 

community, and relevant government agencies,to develop U.S. policies that properly balance

the legitimate need to protect againstthe harmful contamination of the Earth or other celestial

bodies with the scientific, social, and economic benefits of public and private space missions. 

The recommended multi-disciplinary task force should be tasked with producing a detailed 

policy, provided to a joint session of the NAC Regulatory and Policy Committee, the Science 

Committee, and the Human Exploration and Operations Committee, that will describe best 

practices for the Administration, the science and research community, and private sector, to 

protect against harmful contamination and adverse changes in the environment of the Earth. 

The multi-disciplinary task force should also explore the use of the term 'Planetary 

Protection' relative to other terms utilized in the Outer SpaceTreaty.

Major Reasons for the Recommendation:

The COSPAR regulations are becoming obsolete and do not properly account for the 

possibilities of human spaceflight and private sector missions. Creating a multi-disciplinary 

team to craft a balanced policy that can be implemented by NASA (and eventually COSPAR 

itself) will help to encourage new, innovative, human spaceflight, robotic, and private sector 

missions to Mars and other celestial bodies. The more of these missions that take place the 

more science, exploration, and commerce can be conducted.

Consequences of No Action on the Recommendation:

If NASA adopts the COSPAR guidelines without any review or revisions they will have a 

chilling effect on robotic, human spaceflight, and private sector missions. The costs and 

complexity of conducting space missions will not be moderated and could become 

problematic. The result will be less science, exploration, and commercial activities, harming

both national and global interests.

NASA Response:

NASA concurs with the recommendation. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) 

currently is establishing a Planetary Protection Independent Review Board, of approximately 10-

15 members and short-term in nature, to assess and provide updates to biological contamination 

guidelines developed by the international Committee on Space Research (COSPAR). The Planetary 

Protection Independent Review Board's assessment will include analysis of the scientific, 

engineering, industrial, legal, and program management aspects of planetary protection. Results of 

the assessment will be documented in a non-consensus final report presentation, and the 

Independent Review Board will brief NASA, NASA advisory committees, and external stakeholders 

as appropriate.
31

Appendix D: Summary of current COSPAR Guidelines (Kremik, et. al.)

COSPAR’s Planetary Protection Policy [G. Kminek (ESA), C. Conley (NASA), V. Hipkin (CSA), H. Yano

(JAXA)]

Responding to concerns raised in the scientific community that spaceflight missions to the Moon 

and other celestial bodies might compromise their future scientific exploration, in 1958 the 

International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) established an ad-hoc Committee on Contamination by 

Extra- terrestrial Exploration (CETEX) to provide advice on these issues. In the next year, this mandate 

was transferred to the newly founded Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), which as an 

interdisciplinary scientific committee of the ICSU (now the International Council for Science) was 

considered to be the appropriate place to continue the work of CETEX. Since that time, COSPAR has 

provided an international forum to discuss such matters under the terms “planetary quarantine” and 

later “planetary protection”, and has formulated a COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy with associated 

implementation requirements as an international standard to protect against interplanetary biological 

and organic contamination, and after 1967 as a guide to compliance with Article IX of the UN Space 

Treaty in that area (see for reference: UNOOSA 2017, Report of the Committee on the Peaceful Use of 

Outer Space, 60th Session, A/72/20, United Nations, New York).

Updating the COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy, either as a response to new discoveries or based 

on specific requests, is a process that involves representatives from the COSPAR Scientific Commissions

B (Space Studies of the Earth-Moon System, Planets, and Small Bodies of the Solar System) and F (Life 

Sciences as Related to Space), national and international scientific organizations and unions and 

individual scientists (Figure 1). After reaching a consensus among the involved parties, the proposed 

update is formulated by the COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection and submitted to the COSPAR 

Bureau and Council for review and approval.

The COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy described in this paper is the currently approved version 

(dated March 2017) and based on the COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection Colloquium (published in 

Space Research Today, #195, April 2016) and the COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection Business

Meeting (2 August 2016). Updates affect only some requirements for Mars (Mars Special Regions) and 

for Enceladus (new requirements) with respect to the previous version of the policy published in Space 

Research Today, #193, August 2015.

Preamble

Noting that COSPAR has concerned itself with questions of biological contamination and spaceflight 

since its very inception, and

noting that 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 (also known as the 

UN Space Treaty of 1967) states that [1]:

“States Parties to the Treaty shallpursue studies of outer space, including the Moon and other 

celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also 

adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial 

matter, and where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose.”

therefore, COSPAR maintains and promulgates this planetary protection policyfor the reference of 

spacefaring nations, both as an international standard on procedures to avoid organic-constituent and 

biological contamination in space exploration, and to provide accepted guidelines in this area to guide 

compliance with the wording of this UN Space Treaty and other relevant international agreements.
32

Policy

COSPAR,

Referring to COSPAR Resolutions 26.5 and 26.7 of 1964 [2], the Report of the Consultative Group on

Potentially Harmful Effects of Space Experiments of 1966, the Report of the same Group of 1967, and

the Report of the COSPAR/IAU Workshop of 2002 [3],

notes with appreciation and interest the extensive work done by the Panel on Standards for Space 

probe Sterilization and its successors the Panel on PlanetaryQuarantine and the Panel on Planetary 

Protection and

accepts that for certain space mission/target body combinations, controls on contamination shall be 

imposed in accordance with a specified range of requirements, based on the following policy statement:

The conduct of scientific investigations of possible extraterrestrial life forms, precursors, and 

remnants must not be jeopardized. In addition, the Earth must be protected from the potential hazard 

posed by extraterrestrial matter carried by a spacecraft returning from an interplanetary mission. 

Therefore, for certain space mission/target planet combinations, controls oncontamination shall be 

imposed in accordance with issuances implementing this policy. ([4, 5]; ESA PPWG 2008)

The five categories for target body/mission type combinations and their respective suggested 

ranges of requirements are described as follows, and in Table 1. Assignment of categories for specific 

mission/body combinations is to be determined by the best multidisciplinary scientific advice. For new 

determinations not covered by this policy, such advice should be obtained through the auspices of the 

Member National Scientific Institutions of COSPAR. In case such advice is not available, COSPAR will 

consider providing such advice through an ad hoc multidisciplinary committee formed in consultation 

with its Member National Scientific Institutions and International Scientific Unions:

Category I includes any mission to a target body which is not of direct interest for understanding 

the process of chemical evolution or the origin of life. No protection of such bodies is warranted and no 

planetary protection requirements are imposed by this policy.

Category II missions comprise all types of missions to those target bodies where there is significant 

interest relative to the process of chemical evolution and the origin of life, but where there is only a 

remote14 chance that contamination carried by a spacecraft could compromise future investigations. 

The requirements are for simple documentation only. Preparation of a short planetary protection plan is 

required for these flight projects primarily to outline intended or potential impact targets, brief Pre- and 

Post-launch analyses detailing impact strategies, and a Post- encounter and End-of-Mission Report 

which will provide the location of impact if such an event occurs. Solar system bodies consideredto be 

classified as Category II are listed in the Appendix to this document.

Category III missions comprise certain types of missions (mostly flyby and orbiter)to a target body 

of chemical evolution and/or origin oflife interest and for which scientific opinion provides a 

significant chance of contamination which could compromise future investigations. Requirements will 

consist of documentation (more involved than Category II) and some implementing procedures, 

including trajectory biasing,the use of cleanrooms during spacecraft assembly and testing, and possibly 

bioburden reduction. Although no impact is intended for Category III missions, an inventory of bulk 

constituent organics is required if the probability of impactis significant. Category III specifications for 

selected solar system bodies are set forth in the Appendix to this document. Solar system bodies 

 

14 “Remote” here implies the absence of environments where terrestrial organisms could survive and

replicate, or a very low likelihood of transfer to environments where terrestrial organisms could survive and

replicate.
33

considered to be classified as Category III also are listed in the Appendix.

Category IV missions comprise certain types of missions (mostlyprobe and lander)to a target body 

of chemical evolution and/or origin oflife interest and for which scientific opinion provides a 

significant15 chance of contamination which could compromise future investigations. Requirements 

imposed include rather detailed documentation (more involved than Category III), including a bioassay 

to enumerate the bioburden, a probability of contamination analysis, an inventory of the bulk 

constituent organics and an increased number of implementing procedures. The implementing 

procedures required may include trajectory biasing, cleanrooms, bioburden reduction, possible partial

sterilization ofthe direct contact hardware and a bioshield for that hardware. Generally, the

requirements and compliance are similar to Viking, with the exception of complete lander/probe 

sterilization. Category IV specifications for selected solar system bodies are set forth in the Appendix to 

this document. Solar system bodies considered to be classified as Category IV also are listed inthe 

Appendix.

Category V missions comprise all Earth-return missions. The concern for these missions is the 

protection of the terrestrial system, the Earth and the Moon. (The Moon must be protected from back 

contamination to retain freedom from planetary protection requirements on Earth-Moon travel.) For 

solar system bodies deemed by scientific opinion to have no indigenous life forms, a subcategory 

“unrestricted Earth return” is defined. Missions in this subcategory have planetary protection 

requirements on the outbound phase only, corresponding to the category of that phase (typically 

Category I or II). For all other Category V missions, in a subcategory defined as “restricted Earth 

return,” the highest degree of concern is expressed by the absolute prohibition of destructive impact 

upon return, the need for containment throughout the return phase of all returned hardware which 

directly contacted the target body or unsterilized material from the body, and the need for containment 

of any unsterilized sample collected and returned to Earth. Post-mission, there is a need to conduct

timely analyses of any unsterilized sample collected and returned to Earth, under strict containment, 

and using the most sensitive techniques. If any sign of the existence of a nonterrestrial replicating 

entityis found, the returned sample must remain contained unless treated by an effective sterilizing 

procedure. Category V concerns are reflected in requirements that encompass those of Category IV plus 

a continuing monitoring of project activities, studies and research (i.e., in sterilization procedures and 

containment techniques).

Further, COSPAR

Recommends that COSPAR members inform COSPAR when establishing planetary protection 

requirements for planetary missions, and

Recommends that COSPAR members provide information to COSPAR within a reasonable time not 

to exceed six months after launch about the procedures and computations used for planetary protection

for each flight and again within one year after the end of a solar- system exploration mission about the 

areas of the target(s) which may have been subject to contamination. COSPAR will maintain a 

repository of these reports, make them available to the public, and annually deliver a record of these 

reports to the Secretary General of the UnitedNations. For multinational missions, itis suggested that 

the lead partner should take the lead in submitting these reports.

Reports should include, but not be limited to, the following information:

1. The estimated bioburden at launch, the methods used to obtain the estimate (e.g., assay

techniques applied to spacecraft or a proxy), and the statistical uncertainty in the estimate.

2. The probable composition (identification)of the bioburden for Category IV missions, and for

 

15 “Significant” here implies the presence of environments where terrestrial organisms could survive and

replicate, and some likelihood of transfer to those places by a plausible mechanism.
34

Category V “restricted Earth return” missions.

3. Methods used to control the bioburden, decontaminate and/or sterilize the space flight

hardware.

4. The organic inventory of all impacting or landed spacecraft or spacecraft-components, for

quantities exceeding 1 kg.

5. Intended minimum distance from the surface of the target body for launched components,for

those vehicles not intended to land on thebody.

6. Approximate orbital parameters, expectedor realized, for any vehicle which is intended to be

placed in orbit around a solar system body.

7. For the end-of-mission,the disposition ofthe spacecraft and all of its major components, either

in space or for landed components by position (or estimated position) on a planetary surface.

([3, 6, 7, 8])

Appendix: Implementation guidelines and category specifications for individual target 

bodies

Implementation guidelines on the use of clean-room technology for outer-planet missions

COSPAR,

Noting that in the exploration of the outer planets, the probabilities of growth of contaminating 

terrestrial micro-organisms are extremely low, reflecting the fact that the environments of these 

planets appear hostile to all known biological processes,

noting also that these environments do not preclude the possibility of indigenous life forms in some 

of these environments,

recognizing that the search for life is a potentially valid objective in the exploration of the outer 

solar system,

recognizing thatthe organic chemistry of these bodies remains of paramount importance to our 

understanding of the process of chemical evolution and its relationship to the origin of life,

recognizing that study of the processes ofthe pre-biotic organic syntheses under natural conditions 

must not be jeopardized,

recommends the use of the best available clean-room technology, comparable with that employed 

for the Viking mission, for all missions to the outer planets and their satellites.

([9])

Numerical implementation guidelines for forward contamination calculations

To the degree that numerical guidelines are required to support the overall policy objectives of this 

document, and except where numerical requirements are otherwise specified, the guideline to be used

is that the probability that a planetary body will be contaminated during the period of exploration 

should be no more than 1x10-3. The period of exploration can be assumed to be no less than 50 years 

after a Category III or IV mission arrives at its protected target. No specific format for probability of 

contamination calculations is specified.

Guidelines on the implementation of an organic inventory

A spacecraft organic inventory includes a listing of all organic materials carried by a spacecraft 

which are present in a total mass greater than 1 kg. A complete inventory should include organic 

products that may be released into the environment of the protected solar system body by propulsion 
35

and life support systems (if present), and include a quantitative and qualitative description of major 

chemical constituents and the integrated quantity of minor chemical constituents present.

Trajectory biasing

The probability of impact on Mars by any part of the launch vehicle shall be ≤ 1x10-4for a time period 

of 50 years after launch.

Implementation guidelines for Category V missions

If during the course of a Category V mission there is a change in the circumstances that led to its 

classification, or a mission failure, e.g.:

 New data or scientific opinion arise thatwould lead to the reclassification of a mission

classified as “Unrestricted Earth return” to “Restricted Earth return,” and safe return of the sample

cannot be assured, OR

 The sample containment system of amission classified as “Restricted Earth return” is

thought to be compromised, and sample sterilization is impossible, then the sample to be returned shall

be abandoned, and if already collected the spacecraft carrying the sample must not be allowed to return

to the Earth or the Moon.

Category-specific listing of target body/ mission types

Category I: Flyby, Orbiter, Lander Recommendation: Undifferentiated, metamorphosed asteroids; 

Io; others to-be-defined (TBD)

Category II: Flyby, Orbiter, Lander Recommendation: Venus; Moon (with organic inventory); 

Comets; Carbonaceous Chondrite Asteroids; Jupiter; Saturn; Uranus;Neptune;Ganymede*; Callisto; 

Titan*; Triton*; Pluto/Charon*; Ceres; Kuiper- Belt Objects > 1/2 the size of Pluto*; Kuiper- Belt Objects

< 1/2 the size of Pluto; others TBD

Category III: Flyby, Orbiters: Mars; Europa; Enceladus; others TBD

Category IV: Lander Missions: Mars; Europa; Enceladus; others TBD

Category V: Any Earth-return mission

“Restricted Earth return”: Mars; Europa; others TBD

“Unrestricted Earth return”: Venus, Moon; others TBD

*The mission-specific assignment of these bodies to Category II must be supported by an analysis of 

the “remote” potential for contamination of the liquid-waterenvironments that may exist beneath their 

surfaces (a probability of introducing a single viable terrestrial organism of < 1 x 10-4), addressing both

the existence of such environments and the prospects of accessing them.

Category III/IV/V requirements for Mars

Missions to Mars

Note: All bioburden constraints are defined with respect to the number of aerobic microorganisms 

that survive a heat shock of 80°C for 15 minutes (hereinafter “spores”) and are cultured on (TrypticSoy-Agar) TSA at 32°C for 72 hours.

Category III. Mars orbiters will not be required to meet orbital lifetime requirements* if they 

achieve total(surface, mated, and encapsulated) bioburden levels of ≤ 5 x 105spores. (*Defined as 20 

years after launch at greater than or equal to 99% probability, and 50 years after launch at greater than

or equal to 95% probability.)([10])
36

Category IV for Mars is subdivided into IVa, IVb, and IVc:

Category IVa. Lander systems not carrying instruments for the investigations of extant Martian life

are restricted to a surface bioburden level of ≤ 3 x 105spores, and an average of ≤ 300 spores per square

meter.

Category IVb. For lander systems designed to investigate extant Martian life, all of the requirements

of Category IVa apply, along with the following requirement:

 The entire landed system is restricted to a surface bioburden level of ≤ 30*

spores, or to levels of bioburden reduction driven by the nature and sensitivity of the particular lifedetection experiments, OR

 The subsystems which are involved inthe acquisition, delivery, and analysis of samples used for

life detection must be sterilized to these levels, and a method of preventing recontamination of the

sterilized subsystems and the contamination of the material to be analyzed is in place.

Category IVc. For missions which investigate Martian special regions (see definition below), even if 

they do not include life detection experiments, all of the requirements of Category IVa apply, along with 

the following requirement:

 Case 1. If the landing site is within thespecial region, the entire landed system is restricted to a

surface bioburden level of ≤ 30* spores.

 Case 2. If the special region is accessedthrough horizontal or vertical mobility, either the

entire landed system is restricted to a surface bioburden level of ≤ 30* spores, OR the subsystems

which directly contact the special region shall be sterilized to these levels, and a method of preventing

their recontamination prior to accessing the special region shall be provided.

If an off-nominal condition (such as a hard landing) would cause a high probability of inadvertent 

biological contamination of the special region by the spacecraft, the entire landed system must be 

sterilized to a surface bioburden level of ≤ 30* spores and a total (surface, mated, and encapsulated) 

bioburden level of ≤ 30 + (2 x 105)* spores.

*This figure takes into account the occurrence of hardy organisms with respect to the sterilization 

modality. This specification assumes attainment of Category IVa surface cleanliness, followed by at least

a four order-of- magnitude reduction in viable organisms. Verification of bioburden level is based on 

pre- sterilization bioburden assessment and knowledge of reduction factor of the sterilization modality.

Planned 3-sigma pre-launch landing ellipses must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as part of 

the (landing) site selection process, to determine whether the mission would land or come within 

contamination range of areas or volumes meeting the parameter definition for Mars Special Regions or 

would impinge on already described features that must be treated as Mars Special Regions. The 

evaluation must be based on the latest scientific evidence and in particular include an assessment of the

extent to which the temperature and water activity values specified for Mars Special Regions are 

separated in time. The evaluation must be updated during the mission whenever new evidence 

indicates that the landing ellipse and/or the operational environment contain or are in contamination 

range of areas or volumes meeting the parameter definition for Mars Special Regions or already 

described features that must be treated as Mars Special Regions [11].

Definition of “Special Region”

A Special Region is defined as a region within which terrestrial organisms are likely to replicate. 

Any region which is interpreted to have a high potential for the existence of extant Martian life forms is 

also defined as a Special Region.
37

Given current understanding of terrestrial organisms, Special Regions are defined as areas or 

volumes within which sufficient water activity ANDsufficiently warm temperatures to permit

replication ofEarthorganisms may exist. The physical parameters delineating applicable water activity 

and temperature thresholds are given below:

 Lower limit for water activity: 0.5;Upper limit: 1.0

 Lower limit for temperature: -28C[11]; No Upper limit defined

 Timescale within which limits can be identified: 500 years

Spacecraft-induced special regions are to be evaluated, consistent with these limits and features, on 

a case-by-case basis.

Observed features to be treated as Special Regions until demonstrated otherwise [11]:

 Gullies (taxon 2-4)†, and bright streaks associated with gullies

 Subsurface cavities

 Subsurface below 5 meters

 Confirmed and partially confirmed Recurrent Slope Lineae (RSL)‡

Features, if found, to be treated as a Special Region until demonstrated otherwise [11]:

 Groundwater

 Source of methane

 Geothermal activity

 Modern outflow channel

Observed features that require a case-by-case evaluation before being classified as a Special Region 

[11]:

 Dark streaks

 Pasted-on terrain

 Candidate RSL‡

†

Description for Gully taxon [12]

‡

Observational evidence for Recurrent Slope Lineae (RSL), adapted from [13]:

 Confirmed: observed simultaneous incremental growth of flows on awarm slope, fading, and

recurrence of this sequence in multiple Mars years

 Partially confirmed: observed either incremental growth or recurrence

 Candidate: slope lineae that resembleRSL but where observations neededfor partial

confirmation are currently lacking

Spacecraft-induced special regions are to be evaluated, consistent with these limits and features, on 

a case-by-case basis.

In the absence of specific information, no Special Regions are currently identified on the basis of

possible Martian life forms. If and when information becomes available on this subject, Special Regions 

will be further defined on that basis [14].

Sample Return Missions from Mars

Category V. The Earth return mission is classified, “Restricted Earth return.”

 Unless specifically exempted, theoutbound leg of the mission shall meet Category IVb

requirements. This provision is intended to avoid “false positive” indications in a life-detection and
38

hazard-determination protocol, or in the search for life in the sample after it is returned. A “false

positive” could prevent distribution of the sample from containment and could lead to unnecessary

increased rigor in the requirements for all later Mars missions.

 Unless the samples to be returned fromMars are subjected to an accepted and approved

sterilization process, the canister(s) holding the samples returned from Mars shall be closed, with an

appropriate verification process, and the samples shall remain contained during all mission phases

through transport to a receiving facility where it (they) can be opened under containment.

 The mission and the spacecraft designmust provide a method to “break the chain of contact”

with Mars. No uncontained hardware that contacted Mars, directly or indirectly, shall be returned to

Earth. Isolation of such hardware from the Mars environment shall be provided during sample

container loading into the containment system, launch from Mars, and any in- flight transfer operations

required by the mission.

 Reviews and approval of the continuation of the flight mission shall be

required at three stages: 1) prior to launch from Earth; 2) prior to leaving Mars for return to Earth; and

3) priorto commitment to Earth re-entry.

 For unsterilized samples returned to Earth, a program of life detection and biohazard testing, or

a proven sterilization process, shall be undertaken as an absolute precondition for the controlled

distribution of any portion of the sample.

Principles and Guidelines for Human Missions to Mars

The intent of this planetary protection policy is the same whether a mission to Mars is conducted 

robotically or with human explorers. Accordingly, planetary protection goals should not be relaxed to 

accommodate a human mission to Mars. Rather, they become even more directly relevant to such 

missions—even if specific implementation requirements must differ. General principles include:

 Safeguarding the Earth from potential back contamination is the highest planetary protection

priority in Mars exploration.

 The greater capability of humanexplorers can contribute to the astrobiological exploration of

Mars only if human-associated contamination is controlled and understood.

 For a landed mission conducting surface operations, it will not be possible for all humanassociated processes and mission operations to be conducted within entirely closed systems.

 Crewmembers exploring Mars, or theirsupport systems, will inevitably be exposed to Martian

materials.

In accordance with these principles, specific implementation guidelines for human missions to Mars 

include:

 Human missions will carry microbial populations that will vary in both kind and quantity, and it

will not be practicable to specify all aspects of an allowable microbial population or potential

contaminants at launch. Once any baseline conditions for launch are established and met, continued

monitoring and evaluation of microbes carried by human missions will be required to address both

forward and backward contamination concerns.

 A quarantine capability for both the entire crew and for individual crewmembers shall be

provided during and after the mission, in case potential contact with a Martian life-form occurs.

 A comprehensive planetary protection protocol for human missions should be developed that

encompasses both forward and backward contamination concerns, and addresses the combined human

and robotic aspects of the mission, including subsurface exploration, sample handling, and the return of

the samples and crew to Earth.

 Neither robotic systems nor humanactivities should contaminate “Special Regions” on Mars, as
39

defined by this COSPAR policy.

 Any uncharacterized Martian siteshould be evaluated by robotic pre- cursors prior to crew

access. Information may be obtained by either precursor robotic missions or a robotic component on a

human mission.

 Any pristine samples or sampling components from any uncharacterized sites or Special

Regions on Mars should be treated according to current planetary protection category V, restricted

Earth return, with the proper handling and testing protocols.

 An onboard crewmember should be given primary responsibility for the implementation of

planetary protection provisions affecting the crew during the mission.

 Planetary protection requirements for initial human missions should be based on a conservative

approach consistent with a lack of knowledge of Martian environments and possible life, as well as the

performance of human support systems in those environments. Planetary protection requirements for

later missions should not be relaxed without scientific review, justification, and consensus.

Category III/IV/V requirements for Europa and Enceladus [11]

Missions to Europa and Enceladus

Category III and IV. Requirements for Europa and Enceladus flybys, orbiters and landers, including 

bioburden reduction, shall be applied in order to reduce the probability of inadvertent contamination 

of an Europan or Enceladan ocean to less than 1x10-4per mission. The probability of inadvertent 

contamination of a Europan or Enceladan ocean of 1x10-4applies to all mission phases including the

duration that spacecraft introduced terrestrial organisms remain viable and could reach a sub-surface 

liquid water environment. These requirements will be refined in future years, but the calculation of this 

probability should include a conservative estimate of poorly known parameters, and address the 

following factors, at a minimum:

 Bioburden at launch

 Cruise survival for contaminating organisms

 Organism survival in the radiation environment adjacent to Europa or Enceladus

 Probability of landing on Europa o r Enceladus

 The mechanisms and timescales of transport to a Europan or Enceladian subsurface liquid water

environment

 Organism survival and proliferation before, during, and after subsurface transfer

Preliminary calculations of the probability of contamination suggest that bioburdenreduction will 

likely be necessary even for Europa and Enceladus orbiters (Category III) as well as for landers, 

requiring the use of cleanroom technology and the cleanliness of all parts before assembly, and the 

monitoring of spacecraft assembly facilities to understand the bioburden and its microbial diversity,

including specific problematic species. Specific methods should be developed to eradicate problematic 

species. Methods of bioburden reduction should reflect the type of environments found on Europa or 

Enceladus, focusing on Earth extremophiles most likely to survive on Europa or Enceladus, such as cold

and radiation tolerant organisms [15].

Sample Return Missions from Europa and Enceladus

Category V. The Earth return mission is classified, “Restricted Earth return.”

 Unless specifically exempted, the outbound leg of the mission shall meet the contamination

control requirements given above. This provision should avoid “false positive” indications in a lifedetection andhazard-determination protocol, or in the search for life in the sample after it is returned.

A “false positive” could prevent distribution of the sample from containment andcould lead to
40

unnecessary increased rigor in the requirements for all later Europa or Enceladus missions.

 Unless the samples to be returned from Europa or Enceladus are subjected to an accepted and

approved sterilization process, the canister(s) holding the samples returned from Europa or Enceladus

shall be closed, with an appropriate verification process, and the samples shall remain contained during

all mission phases through transport to a receiving facility where it (they) can be opened under

containment.

 The mission and the spacecraft designmust provide a method to “break the chain of contact”

with Europa or Enceladus. No uncontained hardware that contacted material from Europa, Enceladus

or their plumes, shall be returned to the Earth’s biosphere or the Moon. Isolation of such hardware

from the Europan or Enceladan environment shall be provided during sample container loading into

the containment system, launch from Europa or Enceladus, and any in-flight transfer operations

required by the mission.

 Reviews and approval of the continuation of the flight mission shall be required

at three stages: 1) prior to launch from Earth; 2) subsequent to sample collection and prior to a

maneuver to enter a biased Earthreturn trajectory; and 3) prior to commitment to Earth re-entry.

 For unsterilized samples returned to Earth, a program of life detection

and biohazard testing, or a proven sterilization process, shall be undertaken as an absolute

precondition for the controlled distribution of any portion of the sample [16].

Category requirements for small solar system bodies

Missions to Small Solar System Bodies

Category I, II, III, or IV. The small bodies of the solar system not elsewhere discussed in this policy 

represent a very large class of objects. Imposing forward contamination controls on these missions is 

not warranted except on a case-by-case basis, so most such missions should reflect Categories I or II. 

Further elaboration of this requirement is anticipated.

Sample Return Missions from Small Solar System Bodies

Category V. Determination as to whether a mission is classified “Restricted Earth return” or not

shall be undertaken with respect to the best multidisciplinary scientific advice, using the framework

presented in the 1998 report of the U.S. National Research Council’s Space Studies Board entitled,

Evaluating the Biological Potential in Samples Returned from Planetary Satellites and Small Solar System

Bodies: Framework for Decision Making [16]. Specifically, such a determination shall address the

following six questions for each body intended to be sampled:

1. Does the preponderance of scientific evidence indicate that there was never liquid water in or

on the target body?

2. Does the preponderance of scientific evidence indicate that metabolically useful energy

sources were never present?

3. Does the preponderance of scientific evidence indicate that there was never sufficient organic

matter (or CO2 or carbonates and an appropriate source of reducing equivalents)in or on the target body

to support life?

4. Does the preponderance of scientific evidence indicate that subsequent to the disappearance

of liquid water, the target body has been subjected to extreme temperatures (i.e., >160°C)?

5. Does the preponderance of scientific evidence indicate that there is or was sufficient radiation

for biological sterilization of terrestrial life forms?

6. Does the preponderance of scientific evidence indicate that there has been a natural influx to

Earth, e.g., via meteorites, of material equivalent to a sample returned from the target body?
41

For containment procedures to be necessary (“Restricted Earth return”), an answer of "no" or 

“uncertain” needs to be returned to all six questions.

For missions determined to be Category V, “Restricted Earth return,” the following

requirements shall be met:

 Unless specifically exempted, the outbound leg of the mission shall meet

contamination control requirements to avoid “false positive” indications in a life-detection and

hazard-determination protocol, or in any search for life in the sample after it is returned. A “false

positive” could prevent distribution of the sample from containment andcould lead to unnecessary

increased rigor in the requirements for all later missions to that body.

 Unless the samples to be returned aresubjected to an accepted and approved sterilization process,

the canister(s) holding the samples shall be closed, with an appropriate verification process, and

the samples shall remain contained during all mission phases through transport to a receiving

facility where it (they) can be opened under containment.

 The mission and the spacecraft designmust provide a method to “break the chain of contact” with

the small body.

No uncontained hardware that contacted the body, directly or indirectly, shall be returned to Earth. 

Isolation of such hardware from the body’s environment shall be provided during sample container 

loading into the containment system, launch from the body, and any in-flight transfer operations 

required by the mission.

 Reviews and approval of the continuation of the flight mission shall be required at three stages: 1)

prior to launch from Earth; 2) prior to leaving the body or its environment for return to Earth; and

3) prior to commitment to Earth re-entry.

 For unsterilized samples returned to Earth, a program of life detection and biohazard testing, or a

proven sterilization process, shall be undertaken as an absolute precondition for the controlled

distribution of any portion of the sample [16]
42

Figure 1: Process to update the COSPAR planetary protection policy

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge thenumerous scientists who have helped over the previous 

decades to formulate, review and update the planetary protection policy. The authors also would like to 

thank the main and deputy scientific organisers of the Panel on Planetary Protection sessions during 

the biennual COSPAR Scientific Assemblies.

References

1. United Nations, Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use

of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, Article IX, U.N. Doc. A/RES/2222/(XXI)

25 Jan 1967; TIAS No. 6347, 1967.

2. COSPAR. COSPAR RESOLUTION 26.5, COSPAR Information Bulletin 20, 25-26, 1964.

3. Rummel, J.D., et al. Report of the COSPAR/IAU Workshop on Planetary Protection, COSPAR,

Paris, France, 2002.

4. DeVincenzi, D.L., Stabekis, P.D., Barengoltz, J.B. A proposed new policy for planetary protection,

Adv. Space Res. 3, #8, 13-21, 1983.

5. Rummel, J.D., et al. Report of the COSPAR Workshop on Planetary Protection, COSPAR, Paris,

France, 2008.

6. COSPAR. COSPAR DECISION No. 16, COSPAR Information Bulletin 50,15-16, 1969.

7. COSPAR. COSPAR INTERNAL DECISION No. 7/84, Promulgated by COSPAR Letter 84/692-

5.12.-G. 18 July 1984, 1984.

8. COSPAR. COSPAR DECISION No. 1/94, COSPAR Information Bulletin 131, 30, 1994.

9. COSPAR. COSPAR DECISION No. 9/76, COSPAR Information Bulletin 76, 14, 1976.
43

10. DeVincenzi, D.L., Stabekis, P.D., Barengoltz, J. Refinement of planetary protection policy for

Mars missions, Adv. Space Res. 18, #1/2, 311-316, 1996.

11. Kminek, G., Hipkin, V.J., Anesio, A.M., Barengoltz, J., Boston, P.J., Clark, B.C., Conley, C.A.,

Coustenis, A., Detsis, E., Doran, P., Grasset, O., Hand, K., Hajime, Y., Hauber, E., Kolmasová, I.,

Lindberg, R.E., Meyer, M.,

Raulin, F., Reitz, G., Rennó, N.O., Rettberg,P., Rummel, J.D., Saunders, M.P., Schwehm, G., Sherwood, 

B., Smith, D.H., Stabekis, P.D., and Vago, J. COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection Colloquium Report, 

Space Res. Today, 195, 2016.

12. Rummel, J.D, Beaty, D.W., Jones, M.A, Bakermans, C., Barlow, N.G., Boston, P.J., Chevrier, V.F.,

Clark, B.C., de Vera, JP.P., Gough, R.V., Hallsworth, J.E., Head, J.W., Hipkin, V.J., Kieft, T.L., McEwen, A.S.,

Mellon, M.T., Mikucki, J.A., Nicholson, W.L., Omelon, C.R., Peterson, R., Roden, E.E., Lollar, B.S., Tanaka,

K.L., Viola, D., and Wray, J.J.,AnewAnalysis of Mars “SpecialRegions”: Findings of the Second MEPAG

Special Regions Science Analysis Group (SR-SAG2), Astrobiology 14, 887-968, 2014.

13. McEwen, A.S., Dundas, C.M., Mattson, S.S., Toigo, A.D., Ojha, L., Wray, J.J., Chojnacki, M., Byrne,

S., Murchie, S.L., and Thomas, N., Recurrent slope lineae in equatorial regions of Mars, Nature

Geosciences, 7, 53-58, 2014.

14. Kminek, G., Conley, C., Allen, C.C., Bartlett, D.H., Beaty, D.W., Benning, L.G., Bhartia, R., Boston,

P.J., Duchaine, C., Farmer, J.D., Flynn, G.J., Glavin, D.P., Gorby, Y., Hallsworth, J.E., Mogul, R., Moser, D.,

Buford Price, P., Pukall, R., Fernandez-Remolar, D., Smith, C.L., Stedman, K., Steele, A., Stepanauskas, R.,

Sun, H., Vago, J.L., Voytek, M.A., Weiss, P.S., Westall, F., Report of the COSPAR Mars Special Regions

Colloquium, Adv. Space Res. 46, 811-829, 2010.

15. Space Studies Board, National Research Council (US), Preventing the Forward Contamination of

Europa. Task Group on the Forward Contamination of Europa, National Academy of Sciences,

Washington, D.C.,2000.

16. Space Studies Board, National Research Council (US), Evaluating the Biological Potential in

Samples Returned from Planetary Satellites and Small Solar System Bodies, Task Group on Sample Return

From Small Solar System Bodies, National Academy ofSciences, Washington, D.C., 1998.
44

Table 1: Categories for solar system bodies and types of missions [3, 4, 7, 8, 10]

Category I Category II Category III Category IV Category V

Type of Mission Any but

Earth Return

Any but Earth

Return

No direct

contact (flyby, some

orbiters)

Direct contact

(lander, probe, some

orbiters)

Earth Return

Target Body See Categoryspecific

listing

See Categoryspecific listingSee Category- specific

listing

See Category- specific

listing

See Category- specific

listing

Degree of Concern None Record of planned

impact probability

and contamination

control measures

Limit on impact

probability

Passive bioburden

control

Limit on probability of

non-nominal impact

Limit on bioburden

(active control)

If restricted Earth

return:

 No impact on Earth

or Moon;

 Returned hardware

sterile;

 Containment of any

sample.

Representative

Range of

Requirements

None Documentation

only (all brief):

 PP plan

 Pre-launch

report

 Post-launch

report

 Post- encounter

report

 End-of- mission

report

Documentation

(Category II plus):

 Contamination

control

 Organics

inventory (as

necessary)

Implementing

procedures such as:

 Trajectory

biasing

 Cleanroom

 Bioburden

reduction (as

necessary)

Documentation

(Category II plus):

 Pc analysis plan

 Microbial

reduction plan

 Microbial assay

plan

 Organics inventory

Implementing

procedures such as:

 Trajectory biasing

 Cleanroom

 Bioburden

reduction

 Partial sterilization of

contacting

hardware

 (as necessary)

 Bioshield

 Monitoring of

bioburden via

bioassay

Outbound

Same category as target

body/ outbound mission

Inbound

If restricted Earth

return:

 Documentation

(Category II plus):

 Pc analysis plan

 Microbial reduction

plan

 Microbial assay plan

Implementing

procedures such as:

 Trajectory

 biasing

 Sterile

or contained

returned hardware

 Continual

monitoring of

project activities

 Project advanced

studies and research

If unrestricted Earth

return:

 None
45

Appendix E: Cited References

Pavlov, A.A., Vasilyev, G., Ostryakov, V.M., Pavlov, A.K., Mahaffy, P., 2012. Degradation of the organic

molecules in the shallow subsurface of Mars due to irradiation by cosmic rays. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39

(13).

Khodadad, C.L., Wong, G.M., James, L.M., Thakrar, P.J., Lane, M.A., Catechis, J.A., Smith, D.J., 2017.

Stratosphere conditions inactivate bacterial endospores from a Mars spacecraft assembly facility.

Astrobiology 17 (4), 337–350.

Shotwell, R.F., Hays, L.E., Beaty, D.W., Goreva, Y., Kieft, T.L., Mellon, M.T., Moridis, G., Peterson, L.D.. and

Spycher, N., 2019. The potential for an off-nominal landing of a multimission radioisotope

thermoelectric generator-powered spacecraft on Mars to induce an artificial special region.

Astrobiology (in press) V. 19, # 11, DOI: 10.1089/ast.2017.1688

Rummel, J.D., Beaty, D.W., Jones, M.A., Bakermans, C., Barlow, N.G., Boston, P.J., Chevrier, V.F., Clark,

B.C., de Vera, J.P.P., Gough, R. V., Hallsworth, J.E., et al., 2014. A new analysis of Mars ‘‘special regions”:

findings of the second MEPAG Special Regions Science Analysis Group (SR-SAG2). Astrobiology 14

(11), 887–968.