12 October 2017

NASA JOHNSON SPACE CENTER ORAL HISTORY PROJECT

EDITED ORAL HISTORY TRANSCRIPT

JUDITH H. ALLTON

INTERVIEWED BY JENNIFER ROSS-NAZZAL

HOUSTON, TEXAS – 12 OCTOBER 2017

The questions in this transcript were asked during an oral history session. Ms. Allton has edited 

and revised the answers. As a result, this transcript does not exactly match the audio recording. 

ROSS-NAZZAL: Today is October 12, 2017. This interview with Judy Allton is being conducted 

at the Johnson Space Center for the JSC Oral History Project. The interviewer is Jennifer RossNazzal, assisted by Sandra Johnson. Thanks again for coming in this afternoon and walking 

across campus. My car said it was 91 degrees when we walked back, so we appreciate you 

coming over.

Today we were going to talk about the Genesis Discovery [Program] mission. I was 

curious how you got involved with that mission.

ALLTON: It was an opportunity for me to participate in a flight mission. As you know, I’ve 

worked with the lunar samples for a long time, but I didn’t participate in actually collecting those

since I didn’t come until ’74. This was an opportunity to see how you prepare something to fly 

and how to make it work. 

Also the planetary science community was very interested in determining the precise 

solar composition. All the studies on the lunar rocks and meteorites and other planetary bodies 

really needed to know the elemental and isotopic composition of the starting material, the solar 

nebula, thought to be captured in the Sun’s composition. There were a lot of science folks who

thought, “Wow, that’s going to be critical information.”
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 2

I was asked to participate in Genesis by Eileen [K.] Stansbery, who is currently JSC chief 

scientist. Eileen became the contamination control officer for this mission, even though Genesis 

was managed at [NASA] JPL [Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California]. The spacecraft 

was built by Lockheed Martin [Corp.], but JPL built the payload containing the solar wind 

collectors. 

This, as the Discovery missions are, was a PI [principal investigator]-driven mission. 

The principal investigator was Don [Donald S.] Burnett of Caltech [California Institute of 

Technology, Pasadena, California], who’s done a lot of work making laboratory measurements

on lunar and meteorite rock chemistry and isotopes. He had been very keen to determine that 

key piece of information—the solar composition as determined by direct measurement of solar 

matter. Previously, estimates of solar composition were derived from meteorite analyses.

All of the people on the Genesis Science Team are precision chemists in the lab, and 

persnickety, especially isotopers, who work in ultraclean laboratories. They have a reputation 

for washing down the lab walls and suiting up in cleanroom garments to keep the room clean. I 

came from that background, because my background is chemistry and isotope geology, and I 

worked in the Lunar Lab, which we keep in pristine shape. In the Lunar Lab, we care about the 

chemical composition of the paint on the wall, the floor, etc., because certain trace atoms can 

interfere with the age dating for Moon rocks.

So I had the mindset, I think, of being a persnickety chemist, and Don Burnett was an 

amiable guy. I respected his work a lot, Eileen’s also. He picked Eileen to be contamination 

control officer, and that is what made this Discovery mission, I think, unique in a lot of respects, 

even though the mission was managed by JPL. Genesis was unique by funding sample curation 

and allocation included in the proposal, and unique in performing the cleanest payload assembly 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 3

in ISO [International Organizations for Standardization] 4 (Class 10) environment. That Don 

and the science team expressed confidence in the curation expertise and long experience by JSC 

Astromaterials curation was indeed a compliment!

Those Discovery missions were smaller than flagship missions. Right now I’ve been 

peripherally involved in some of the Mars 2020 meetings, and that program involves a lot of 

people. The management structure is quite large, but Discovery mission management was small, 

with closer professional relationships and respect among team members.

By all accounts Don Burnett worked very well with the JPL management, had some input 

into who was going to be on the JPL engineering team, and, between him and the JPL managers

they chose excellent team members. It worked out very well. The engineers cared about the 

science, the precise composition of the Sun, and did their very best to make it work. Don is a 

real hands-on principal investigator, checking details. Not all of the Discovery mission PIs were. 

Don would call up and ask what we were doing. He would suit up and come into the lab. He 

visited all the laboratories operated by the science team, which was comprised of leading 

planetary scientists world-wide. It wasn’t a very—what do you call when you—?

ROSS-NAZZAL: Hierarchical?

ALLTON: Right. Anybody could talk to anyone else on a first name basis. Everybody who had 

hands-on access to the hardware to be used for collecting these samples pretty much understood 

what science results were going to come out of the mission, and that they had to be very careful

about contamination control. It was a team built on mutual respect.
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 4

ROSS-NAZZAL: You mentioned it was unique because it was a smaller group. Do you recall 

about how many folks were participating in this mission?

ALLTON: If I think back to the telephone list we used, there were about 250 people across groups 

at JPL, LMA [Lockheed Martin Astronautics], LANL [Los Alamos National Laboratory, New 

Mexico], JSC, UTTR [Utah Test and Training Range], KSC [Kennedy Space Center, Florida], 

and, of course, the science team members from various universities. The largest number of 

people were at JPL and LMA. JPL managed the mission, mission design, navigation, and 

payload design and fabrication. LMA built the spacecraft and sample return capsule (SRC), and 

controlled the mission during flight from their control room in Denver. Los Alamos people built 

and calibrated the concentrator, an active collector that concentrated ions of the principal science 

goals—O, N, C. 

People at KSC were involved with launch, and people at UTTR were extremely helpful 

during recovery, especially after the parachute deploy failure and resulting hard landing. I 

should talk later how the UTTR people furnished all kinds of help in salvaging the payload, they 

are a real “can do” outfit. Karen McNamara was the JSC curation point-of-contact working with 

UTTR folks to prepare for recovery in 2004. 

Burnett and his science team, about 30 people, and JSC contamination control team, 

about 10 people, were invested in the mission from beginning to end. At time of Genesis launch 

in 2001, Burnett had been working on Genesis and its first-attempt proposal called Suess-Urey 

for about 20 years. [The Suess-Urey mission was named after two prominent scientists in the 

field of cosmochemistry—Drs. Hans E. Suess and Harold C. Urey]. The original science team 

members defined the collector materials in the 1990s. I also count, from people I worked with 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 5

directly, about 15 payload people from JPL, 5-10 people from LANL, and 10-15 recovery people 

from LMA as being involved from mission design through hardware fabrication, cleaning, 

assembly, flight operations, recovery and allocation of samples to investigators. Having these 

long-term relationships was very useful during the sample analysis period, which still continues 

today, because I often consulted the payload and spacecraft people concerning materials which 

might be contamination sources on the surfaces of the collectors. This is a unique strong point of

Genesis planning and teamwork. 

Materials scientist A. J. G. (Amy) Jurewicz is an example of someone involved long-term 

with Genesis. She was the Genesis project scientist at JPL pre-flight and most knowledgeable 

about the collector materials. She continues to be the “go to” person as we document how the 

collected materials were subtly changed by the space radiation environment.

We at JSC were mostly concerned with cleaning and assembling the payload in [Federal 

Standard 209E] Class 10 conditions. Today it would be ISO Class 4. It’s very clean. We suited 

up entirely, and in those days we had Teflon-coated suits, with helmets. Everything exhausted,

that you breathed out or that came off your body, went through a HEPA [high efficiency 

particulate air]-filter on the back. It was like a lightweight spacesuit, but it wasn’t a pressure 

suit. It was merely to keep people from shedding into the lab.

We built the lab here at JSC because we had extensive experience in cleaning hardware 

associated with science samples. So the JPL payload engineers arrived at JSC with their 

payload. We and they took it apart. We cleaned the parts. They put it back together, but it was 

a well-integrated process, a smooth interaction. The JPL folks came to Texas in August and 

stayed here for months. Their processes were very different than ours. For Eileen Stansbery and 

I, it was an interesting difference, watching the meeting of cultures. 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 6

I can remember when the people from JPL showed up with a truck, with their payload in 

it in hot weather here. They stepped out wearing their Hawaiian shirts, Bermuda shorts, and 

sandals, and here we were in our blue jeans. Jack [L. Warren] had a gimme [baseball] cap on. It 

just looked like two cultures meeting each other.

They came from a place where they do big missions. They put spacecraft together in 

enormous, multistory clean rooms that weren’t really so clean by our standards. We asked them 

to work in a room that had only an eight-foot ceiling height. Because the top of the room was

covered with ULPA [ultra low penetration air] filters, and the air would go straight down through 

the floor and then back up the sidewall. We had a laminar flow that would sweep particles down 

and away, but the ceiling wasn’t very high.

They were pretty good sports, because we said, “Now all of you have to work in this nottoo-high ceiling room. You have to wear this suit, which completely encloses your body. The 

head gear encloses your face and allows vision through a plastic face shield, the suit motor pulls 

all exhaled breath and particles shed from your body through a small HEPA filter, and gloves 

and boots complete the enclosure. When you install screws in the hardware, you can’t touch the

screws with the gloves, you have to use tweezers.” They were either good actors or good sports, 

because they did it without grumbling.

They had new rules for us as well. JPL is very careful about controlling electrostatic 

discharge during spacecraft assembly because it can cause undetectable damage, so we had to 

take ESD [electrostatic discharge control] training and become sensitive to ESD safe protocols.

In addition to assembling a payload in Class 10, we were cleaning the hardware with 

ultrapure water (UPW). Measuring the carbon isotope composition of the Sun was one of the 

science goals. We felt like organic solvents would leave some organic residue, so the final 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 7

cleaning was just water that’s very, very pure – ultrapure water. UPW has very high resistivity 

and acts a little bit like an acid, a little bit like a base. It is “hungry” water and removes many 

contaminants without leaving a residue. Our UPW production was 10 gallons per minute. 

The JSC team cleaned the payload hardware in one cleanroom. There were only about 

five of us that did all that work. We felt like the A-Team [television series] or Skunk Works

[Lockheed Martin Advanced Development Programs]. We would work right into the night. We 

would go out to the hardware store or other places and buy equipment needed to make the lab 

work using our own money. We have one picture of people scrubbing the threads on very tiny 

screws. Everyone is fully suited up, and the “dishwashers” were 2 PhDs and a Master’s level 

geochemists. Because everybody put in a lot of effort, it was team-building work. That’s the 

JSC side. We would hand-off the cleaned hardware to the JPL team in assembly cleanroom.

We started every day with a meeting to review actions. Eileen Stansbery set that up. The 

JSC-JPL team just worked really well together, because there weren’t very many of us. There 

were about four or five of them, and there were about four or five of us. There were some 

problems getting hardware cleaned and assembled but that got worked out. That was getting 

ready for flight. I note here that the families of everyone working this mission deserve credit for 

mission success because of the long hours required. People who work flight missions know this.

Finally, all was cleaned and assembled. Then the payload canister, containing the 300 

solar wind collectors, was closed for the final time in this room. Everybody present and 

watching was enclosed in Teflon fabric suits with faceplates. I thought, “The arrays with the 

polished collectors are so beautiful. Wow, I wonder what it will look like when we get it back.” 

Genesis was supposed to be launched in 2000 but didn’t get launched till 2001. Genesis reentered Earth in September 2004. I was there in Utah for the return September 8, 2004, at 10 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 8

a.m. Genesis had been parked in a halo orbit at Earth-Sun L1 and was open to collect solar wind 

for about 27 months. That was just barely enough time to gather enough solar atoms in these 

collectors so people could make solar wind measurements above background level. All of 

Genesis involved cutting-edge analytical challenges.

ROSS-NAZZAL: I wanted to go back and ask a couple questions. You mentioned Eileen 

Stansbery. She approached you with the possibility of working on the team?

ALLTON: She did. I was at an age where I thought I could do anything.

ROSS-NAZZAL: How did you come up with that contamination control document? Just being 

over at the old LRL [Lunar Receiving Laboratory] today was amazing. I’m thinking about all 

the things that went into contamination control. You have a much smaller space, but you 

obviously had to think about all of those things. Can you talk about how you started, and how 

that idea evolved?

ALLTON: For contamination control procedures and processes?

ROSS-NAZZAL: Yes.

ALLTON: Actually started after the LRL. The rocks were moved out of the LRL, because in 

general the geology people felt they couldn’t keep it clean enough because of the materials and 

animals required by the hazard detection people. Plus, the geologists wanted to keep the samples 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 9

under positive pressure nitrogen, which is what they did after quarantine was no longer required. 

They designed the building that’s now 31N especially for the purpose of keeping the lunar rocks 

clean and pristine, and it was done by a committee of about five planetary scientists. Most of 

them were isotopers because they’re picky about keeping labs clean, and all of them had built 

ultraclean laboratories. Two of these lunar facility committee members are notable not only for 

detailed attention to the new lunar facility back the 1970s, but also for their long service to 

Genesis mission serving, until recent time, on the oversight committee for allocations of Genesis 

samples: Dimitri [A.] Papanastassiou and Laurence [E.] Nyquist.

The lunar facility committee worked closely with the engineering people on Building 31 

to screen the elemental content of the flooring, the paint, and the wires that plug into the lights. 

For example, this subcommittee required that the brass plaques identifying doors as fire-rated

doors be removed from the doors for contamination control reasons; brass is composed of 

elements that interfere with science results. It was very tightly managed. Everyone who worked 

there was focused on not bringing certain elements into the lab where they could inadvertently 

get in the samples. My chemistry background was helpful in this respect.

While I worked in the Lunar Lab, one of the things I did was dissect lunar cores. The

drive tubes from the last three missions are the main ones that I worked on. To get those out of 

the tube takes a lot of equipment, which is assembled inside of a nitrogen-filled glovebox inside 

of a cleanroom. We had detailed procedures because the assembly had to be done in a precise 

sequence. Extrusion and dissection of Apollo drive tube samples was a controlled and 

documented process with attention to detail. We used the same thing approach to define what 

we should do for Genesis, which had even more stringent contamination requirements.
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 10

We put that laminar flow clean room on the first floor of the Lunar Sample Building

(Building 31N). We did not have enough money or time to build a new lab for Genesis. But we 

chose the Lunar Sample Building location because I figured—or maybe Jack and I did—that that 

building would not blow away in a hurricane. As you know, the lunar sample facility is very 

solidly built. The lunar samples are up above what was the predicted extreme storm surge at that 

time. For the Genesis Lab we chose a space on the first floor directly below the Pristine Lunar

Sample Lab, because the building was solid, and it was built out of materials compatible with 

Genesis contamination control requirements.

ROSS-NAZZAL: You mentioned the Teflon suits that you wore and the faceplates. Was that 

something that was on the market? Or was that something that you had to look at and develop? 

Was there other hardware or tools that you had to develop unique to that lab?

ALLTON: No, those suits were on the market. The brand name was Dryden suits. I say Teflon, 

you’re probably picturing something like a Teflon bag and crinkly. It wasn’t that. It was 

actually—I think it was a polyester fabric. It just had a Teflon coating on it. That was used to 

cut down on particles being shed off the suit. I think they may make something similar now. 

Just recently we started getting rid of the old Dryden suits because those things have a certain 

shelf life. After Genesis crashed, we just worked in regular full suits with only eyes exposed,

without the HEPA filter headgear. It didn’t seem to be required after we had retrieved collectors

off the desert floor. Some new labs are looking at similar suits now. Those suits are not as 

common. 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 11

We were riding the crest of the semiconductor industry innovation when we put Genesis 

Lab together. They’re very conscious of operating low-particle labs. People are very dirty, they 

shed about 7 pounds of skin and hair annually. Those suits were used in semiconductor industry 

in ultraclean labs, back around 1998 when we were putting the lab together.

The industry has moved on. Now there’s more robots and less people, so the need for 

those suits is not what it once was. I don’t know if we could find the same thing again. Similar 

suits have gone into the medical-surgical arena. I’m not sure they’d be exactly the same.

ROSS-NAZZAL: You had talked about cleaning that container when JPL brought that payload 

out. Were there some other cleaning solvents that you may have used before that? How big of a 

container are we talking about? How long did that whole process take?

ALLTON: The payload itself was the shape of a tuna can, about 30 inches across, about 18 inches 

high. It opened with a hinge, like a clam shell, and it was constructed of bare aluminum. A lot 

of spacecraft designers will finish off their aluminum parts with anodized finish, but anodized 

finish is kind of porous and can trap a lot of contamination, so Genesis did not use anodization 

surface treatment on the interior parts next to the collectors. On the exterior, the cover top was 

painted white for thermal management, and the bottom was anodized.

This was the first experiment that I know of—I think it was the first payload ever 

assembled in an ISO Class 4 clean room. The aluminum did not have an anodized finish on it, or 

any kind of finish. We cleaned it with the water. I’m sure we created some aluminum oxide on 

there, and in fact if you use too hot a water it would get a little bit brown. We were careful with 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 12

that. But we could get the particle counts down really low to level 25, when you collect the rinse 

water on those two big pieces.

We had an ultrapure water tank that was a little bigger than the tuna can. It was taken 

down to its piece parts. The lid, with exterior white paint, and the bottom, with exterior hard 

anodize, were not submerged. For those we had a wand that would take the ultrapure water and 

put megasonic energy in it, so you could hose down those two large pieces, with very clean 

water that had been megasonically energized and would lift particles off.

ROSS-NAZZAL: What does that mean? I don’t understand what that means.

ALLTON: Many labs submerge hardware to be cleaned in ultrasonic cleaners. The ultrasonic 

energy loosens the particles so they can be washed away. Megasonic is a higher energy level. 

The cleaning effects are slightly different than ultrasonic. Our device provided a shower of 

megasonically energized ultrapure water aimed at the object to be cleaned. It’s like taking a 

shower versus taking a bath. In the bathtub you’re sitting with the dirt, in the shower the dirt is 

washed down the drain. There was that difference. By particle counts that we took, it worked 

really well, getting these large, odd-shape pieces particle-free and cleaned up.

ROSS-NAZZAL: How long did that process take you?

ALLTON: Trying to recall the dates. If we were to clean one piece, like the bottom or the top, it 

would be a daylong thing: getting it in there, cleaning it up. Then you had to take nitrogen jets 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 13

and dry it. All of this was in a fairly particle-free room. You’d set that out overnight. It would 

be ready to assemble the next day. 

ROSS-NAZZAL: Did you say this was also manufactured in a clean room? So if it was, what was 

the idea or the intent behind having to clean the equipment again?

ALLTON: I think payload parts were manufactured in a regular machine shop, perhaps with care 

to keep it clean. Additionally parts arrived from JPL cleaned and bagged, but their typical flight 

cleaning requirements were not sufficient to meet the science requirements.

ROSS-NAZZAL: Oh, it was. Okay.

ALLTON: We did some precleaning on it, you know wiping. We actually used a little bit of 

surfactant. In this case it was Joy [dishwashing liquid], two drops of Joy in a whole pan of 

water, but that was just to get handling debris off of it.

ROSS-NAZZAL: There was concern about contamination. Is that why it had to be clean? Were 

you concerned about bringing life here and sending it to the Sun? I’m just curious about that.

ALLTON: We weren’t concerned about biology. It’s just that small particles of any kind, if they 

got onto the collector surfaces, would make it harder to analyze the solar wind. Most of the solar 

wind collection surfaces were highly polished. Most of them were silicon wafers. That was a 

semiconductor product of the time. It’s another reason Genesis happened at the right time to 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 14

match the semiconductor industry. They were making a lot of very pure silicon wafers and they 

knew how to get them superclean.

We didn’t actually clean the polished wafers that we bought. They came off a process 

line from the suppliers that produced the cleanest wafers. Science team members analyzed 

several samples and determined who provided the purest, cleanest wafers. 

Those arrays, on which the mirror polished hexagonal-shaped wafers were mounted, 

were objects of beauty! This was an interesting lesson in the value of contamination control 

personnel having “eyes on” the fabrication processes. The arrays were delicately and precisely

carved out with a process called electric discharge machining (EDM), which is a wire that cuts 

the metal using high voltage and is a relatively dirty process. Metal particles from the wire 

become embedded in the cut piece. These process details are not always obvious to the 

contamination control monitors, nor the science effects straightforward to the engineers tasked 

with fabricating the hardware. 

When cleaning the array frames at JSC, this problem was detected and mitigated by 

resurfacing the array frames. Residues of copper and zinc from the cutting process were detected 

by analysis of the cutting coupons collected and archived during fabrication. This example 

illustrates the value of acquiring and archiving reference and witness materials, for which 

Genesis curation is recognized. For Genesis we archived several kinds of reference materials: 

samples of all the materials used in constructing the Class 10 lab. This includes paint, 

fireproofing, flooring, caulk, and gaskets. Samples of spacecraft components: spare fasteners 

cleaned for flight, bags, RTV [room temperature vulcanizing] staking compound, lubricants, 

cutting oil, array frames including the outfall pieces from the EDM, engineering model spares. 

Most important reference materials were the non-flown collectors. These are critical for 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 15

background measurements for analyzing solar wind collectors. In fact, over the years we have 

allocated 600 fragments of solar wind collectors and over 300 reference collectors. All of these 

reference materials are tracked in a database, just like Genesis-flown collectors.

We were careful about clean hardware adjacent to the solar wind collectors. 

Micrometeorite impacts from interplanetary dust might hit the aluminum frame and splatter 

frame material on the collectors. That’s one reason we were so picky about everything that went 

into it.

ROSS-NAZZAL: It sounds like it. You mentioned the suit. I’m just curious because also when 

we were over at [Building] 37 mentioned how every time somebody left that building they had to 

take a shower. Did you have other requirements beyond donning a suit for going in there?

ALLTON: No, we actually had people change out of their street clothes and put on scrubs under 

those suits just to keep from dragging particles from street clothes into the lab. Also that was 

cooler than most street clothes. The suits didn’t breathe all that well. Our precautions were for 

the purpose of keeping the interior of the suits clean and personnel comfort. The LRL procedure 

was for the purpose of containment of potential biohazards inside the LRL.

ROSS-NAZZAL: I can imagine with Teflon on.

ALLTON: Because the clean room—the air coming from the ceiling to the floor travels at 100 

linear feet per minute. So what does that make, 12 air changes a minute? That “vertical breeze” 

cools things off a lot just because the air is moving. In the LRL the scrubs were the lab outfit. 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 16

They made people take off everything and put on laboratory-furnished scrubs. They had to take 

off everything and shower out before they could leave. They were just trying to make sure no 

one carried anything hazardous out of the lab.

ROSS-NAZZAL: Did you ever go visit any clean labs in Silicon Valley as you were creating this 

lab? Or did you just read up on literature and decide, “These are the things that we need to have 

as we’re constructing this lab”?

ALLTON: We attended—between Eileen, Jack, and I—several semiconductor conferences. They 

provided clean room classes, suit classes, air shower classes. We went to the trade shows. 

That’s where we got our megasonic cleaner that we used and the cascade tanks. Most of those 

things were not very expensive. Back in those days several semiconductor trade shows were in 

Austin, so we could drive. It was very economical.

ROSS-NAZZAL: So most everything was off the shelf. It wasn’t anything newly created for JSC?

ALLTON: Most of our equipment was off the shelf, and one Genesis contribution was adapting 

ultrapure water for cleaning flight hardware and assembling the payload in a Class 10 

environment. After the crash, we made another significant contribution by adapting a wafer spin 

cleaner and using it to megasonically spin clean selected Genesis collector fragments. That 

works well. 

ROSS-NAZZAL: How did you come up with that idea?
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 17

ALLTON: Using the spin cleaner to clean contaminant particles from Genesis samples, after the 

crash, was the idea of Michael [J.] Calaway. Using UPW to clean hardware was driven by the 

need to discontinue using Freon 113 to clean lunar tools. We had an enormous Freon still that 

was, I don’t know, six or eight feet high. Our metal parts that we cleaned for tools and 

containers for use in the lunar cabinets would be cleaned with Freon. Every once in a while we

find a piece of hardware that was cleaned with Freon years ago and still bagged. Of course we 

haven’t used Freon in decades, but the Freon-cleaned pieces are exceptionally clean.

When we had to move away from Freon, we moved to was ultrapure water. Curation 

built an ultrapure water system. It’s a water plant. It’s equivalent to Milli-Q water that people 

use in small quantities in labs. The resistivity is high, over 18-megaohm. We had several 

hundred feet of piping, supplying several labs, producing about eight gallons a minute. We 

produce enough to flush lunar glove boxes, meteorite glove boxes, clean hardware with UPW 

water heaters. We had that in place already. Don Burnett, thinking he didn’t want to have any 

organic residue left on the hardware, thought we could use UPW. So we did. A note about the 

ultrapure water—UPW cannot be captured in a container and used at another location. The 

UPW reacts with container walls and soon is no longer ultrapure. Labs using UPW have to be 

attached to the circulating loop.

ROSS-NAZZAL: Were you briefing him on all of these developments as you were working on the 

clean room and the contamination plan?
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 18

ALLTON: He knew about the water, because we had switched over to cleaning lunar tools that 

way. We picked a cleanliness level, and what we would need to achieve that cleanliness level. 

Since it was similar to the semiconductor industry, Don Burnett was agreeable, because they had 

already been buying materials cleaned by the semiconductor industry for collectors and 

analyzing them. They were satisfied that they were clean enough. They were probably the 

cleanest anyone could get things in those days.

ROSS-NAZZAL: How far out had you been working on this clean room? Was it before they 

started building the spacecraft? Or was it as they were designing and building?

ALLTON: Genesis was initially proposed as Discovery Mission called Suess-Urey. Suess-Urey 

Mission did not get selected that time, but our sister sample return mission Stardust did. 

However, many elements of the solar wind mission had been already developed. We’d already 

written the contamination control plan, of which I was a major contributor. When another round 

of Discovery competition opened, the basic elements of Suess-Urey plus improvements were 

submitted under the name Genesis, something that sounded more attractive, I guess. A lot of the

Phase A work was already done. 

We had already thought about how to do this clean room, so when it was selected late in 

1997 it was a matter of getting the Center (JSC) to support the facility, which Eileen Stansbery 

negotiated and is most knowledgeable about those details. JSC provided engineering support 

and funding for preparing an existing room in 31N into which a Class 10 cleanroom could be 

placed. The cost was very modest, since we were just setting a clean room inside of an existing 

room. 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 19

ROSS-NAZZAL: The whole mission wasn’t that expensive. I saw the cost. It’s very modest, 

especially compared to a Space Shuttle flight.

ALLTON: Oh, yes. But what made it really go was the four or five of us were just all 

persnickety. We were after every detail. To prepare a clean room for this mission and to permit

good analyses at that low sensitivity level, you have to watch all the details, and sometimes that’s 

not really appreciated.

ROSS-NAZZAL: I’m sure some people, maybe facility people, got a little frustrated at times.

ALLTON: The facility people back in ’98 and ’99, they were a pleasure to work with. We 

explained what we were trying to do. We met with hands-on workers every morning. We took 

particle counts in the laboratories adjacent to where workers were preparing the room in which 

the Class 10 room would be placed. We’d say, “Okay, the particle count was this yesterday.” So 

they knew we were measuring how much mess they were creating. Actually the particle counts 

were quite good, so that was encouraging. They were very careful. That worked very well.

What the JSC site people did, they created a lovely shell. The shell was coated with 

clean room paint, the flooring was cleanroom compatible, the incipient fire detection system 

installed, and the air handler ductwork was sealed to prevent shedding. It was beautiful and still 

is today. An outside contractor with expertise in cleanroom construction built the cleanroom 

inside of the shell room. The walls, raised floor, and ceiling were assembled from pre-made 

struts and panels. The Genesis cleanroom consisted of total ceiling coverage with ULPA fan 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 20

filter units. There were 55 FFUs [fan filter units] all hung from the bottom deck of the Lunar 

Lab. This was a creative solution from the contractor to save space and maximize room size. 

We got a fairly large size room in a small space. They knew what they were doing. 

Looking back, all that worked well, because we were meeting with them every day, monitoring 

the material composition, and explaining if we had concerns. I’m not sure you could do that on a 

larger scale.

ROSS-NAZZAL: How big is that room?

ALLTON: The lower elevation room is something like 20 feet by 10 feet. The upper room is 15 

feet by 15 feet. There’s a corridor that connects them on two levels. The original use for the 

rooms that became Genesis Lab included a public viewing room and restrooms. These rooms 

were dropped down two and a half feet lower to confine any water from the restrooms and 

prevent the water from entering lab areas where samples were handled. This was a wise original 

decision. 

ROSS-NAZZAL: That makes sense.

ALLTON: The original Lunar Sample Building was well done. 

ROSS-NAZZAL: You mentioned JPL coming out here. Did you have the opportunity to go out to 

JPL or Lockheed at any time?
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 21

ALLTON: I did not go to JPL or LMA during mission development. One reason is that I was 

extremely busy at JSC getting the cleanroom ready. Eileen participated in meetings at JPL as the 

principal JSC representative. I interacted more with JPL, Lockheed Martin, and UTTR in the 

interval after launch and getting ready for recovery. What we were going to do in Utah, and how 

to get ready for that. There was still more procedures that needed to be written. How did we 

want to document the handling environment at UTTR, witness plates, etc.? What was the 

process of retrieving the payload and the sample return capsule? 

Genesis sample return capsule was scheduled to re-enter at UTTR at 10 a.m., September 

8, 2004. The recovery plan called for a mid-air retrieval of the capsule. After the parachute was 

deployed, slowing down the descent, the parachute was to be snagged using a hook towed by a 

helicopter. The helicopter pilot was to snag the parachute, set it gently on the ground to secure 

it, and then fly the SRC to a clean room that we had set up nearby at UTTR. That cleanroom 

operated with a few HEPA FFUs and did not have a raised floor, so it was not the level of 

cleanliness in the JSC Genesis Lab. This cleanroom was placed at UTTR in order to saw open 

the SRC and put a nitrogen purge on the closed payload canister. Then the payload would go 

into a shipping box connected to a nitrogen cylinder. It would be transported under nitrogen 

purge all the way back to Houston, and only be opened when again back in the JSC clean room.

ROSS-NAZZAL: Didn’t quite work.

ALLTON: No it did not. That’s not what happened. 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 22

ROSS-NAZZAL: Did you all come up with that idea of that helicopter coming in and making that 

grab?

ALLTON: The Lockheed engineers had an interest and the right connections to work out the midair retrieval. Bob Corwin was the LMA lead engineer for the mid-air retrieval effort. He and 

some of the UTTR personnel had been fascinated with snagging stuff coming back from space, 

and there was military precedent for that with round parachutes. The parafoil, or gliding 

parachute, invented in 1967, offered a much safer and more reliable alternative. The right 

connection for Bob Corwin was Roy A. Haggard, who invented the flyby intercept method for 

military application in the early 1990s. Those two became good friends and evangelists for midair retrieval for Genesis. By the time I was involved in the UTTR portion of the recovery 

planning, the mid-air retrieval had been demonstrated many times, and it did look easy, due to 

the great skill of the pilots. 

Cliff [Clifford T.] Fleming was a movie stunt pilot. He was a military veteran from, I 

think, probably Vietnam. We did get to watch them practice that. They never ever missed. It 

was so graceful; it was like a ballet in the sky. You’d think a re-entering spacecraft would be 

traveling a high velocity, so snagging that spacecraft parachute with a hook is going to be very 

hard to do. However, when the parafoil is deployed it slows down the capsule putting it into a 

big spiral, going about 20 miles an hour. So the prime helicopter and the backup helicopter both 

had several chances to make the snag, if missed. They never did miss. 

The doors to the helicopter were removed so the crew could operate a winch from the 

“back seat.” Cliff would lean out the window to get a good view of the target. He placed the 

hook just left of the centerline to make the snag. That would keep the parachute from flopping 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 23

around. They practiced setting the SRC gently on the ground. But before the SRC was set 

down, the backup helicopter would first set out a clean tarp, to keep the SRC touching the dry 

lakebed. This interim set down, close to the snag site, was for the purpose of securing the SRC 

to the helicopter tow line. Then the SRC was towed to the cleanroom entry area and lowered 

into a cradle. Cliff could set the SRC down so gently in the practice runs. I just couldn’t believe 

it.

I could look up and see the helicopter bouncing up and down [demonstrates], but the 

payload, the SRC, would be hanging straight and level, carefully and slowly lowered into the 

cradle. I do not know how they can do that, it was amazing, and that’s what they practiced. Of 

course, they didn’t get to do that, as it turned out.

ROSS-NAZZAL: Were you also practicing simulations in terms of getting the payload, taking it 

back, and putting it in the nitrogen purge? Were you doing any of those things, or were you 

primarily focused on procedures?

ALLTON: I was part of that rehearsal process. After the SRC was placed in the cradle, the cradle 

was to be rolled into the high bay. The next step was to have been sawing the latches open. This 

is one of those little “oops” things. There was no other way to open the capsule because they 

would have blown the hinge off to make a more aerodynamic entry. The plan was to take a saw 

and saw the latches off the outer capsule, the SRC.

My job was to run the vacuum cleaner with the filter so it could trap all the particles from 

sawing. We all had little jobs like that to rehearse. I think Eileen might have been a backup for
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 24

the people prepared to use a sniffer. This was to check that there were no toxic fumes coming 

off of the SRC from reentry heating.

Then re-entry day arrived, September 8, 2004, 10 a.m. People at the Utah Test and

Training Range and at Hill Air Force Base [Utah] were tracking the incoming capsule—they 

were actually calling out the altitude and the vector to Cliff and his crew and the second 

helicopter crew. They’d call out numbers of the altitude and the vector. The rest of us were 

watching this on long-range video, but the pilots weren’t. All they could do was hear the call 

out. 

The altitude numbers seemed to be dropping too fast to Roy [A.] Haggard who was in the 

cockpit with Cliff Fleming. Roy was uneasy. Then Range Control Officer Luke Topper at Hill 

Air Force Base said, “Impact.” Cliff couldn’t believe it. He asked Luke to repeat that.

ROSS-NAZZAL: What was the mood like in the room watching the video at that point?

ALLTON: I watched the re-entry sequence in the high bay of the building (Building 1112) at 

Dugway next to the cleanroom set up to receive the SRC. I was watching with the crew from 

JSC, LMA, and JPL who were prepared to open the SRC and, inside the cleanroom, put the 

nitrogen purge on the sample canister. We watched the capsule tumble downward and smack 

into the dry lakebed. Our heads turned toward the storage cabinets where we had placed kits for 

collecting shards off the desert floor, if the recovery did not go as planned. We were already

looking at the cabinets, wanting to get the collecting kits, and go to the crash site to recover the 

collectors. These kits were buckets with pre-numbered containers, mostly bags, gloves, tweezers 

for cleanly picking up shards, but also included a camera, scale bar, and notebooks. 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 25

ROSS-NAZZAL: So you had worked on those contingency plans just in case?

ALLTON: Yes, I brought terrain maps in case we needed them, but the people at Hill Air Force 

Base, they had their own maps too. I had written a documentation plan, which contained a 

section on documenting samples collected under this unhappy circumstance of scattered shards. 

Yes, we were ready for that. I’m not sure all the managers were ready for us to go out there. It 

took a while for that to settle out, and we workers had to obtain permission to go to the site and 

start recovering material.

ROSS-NAZZAL: Oh, really? Why was that the case, do you think?

ALLTON: I’m not sure.

ROSS-NAZZAL: I’m sure as a scientist you were ready to get out there.

ALLTON: We knew what we wanted to do. I guess they wanted to double-check everything, 

which I thought would have been done already. I am sure those discussions were interesting.

ROSS-NAZZAL: How did you go out and capture this material? Did you have to suit up? Or you 

could just go out dressed as we are today?
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 26

ALLTON: We were dressed very casually because it was hot, and we expected to be working in 

the cleanroom covered with smocks, hats, gloves, and shoe covers. The team that went to the 

crash site to recover the science canister and contents consisted of personnel from LMA, who 

designed the SRC, JPL, who designed the payload, and one person, Karen [N.] McNamara, from 

JSC representing curation. The field people were the people who knew the hardware best, and 

Karen served to instruct everyone the best way to recover and document the samples. The field 

team was in contact with Don Burnett and Genesis managers via radio to collaborate on 

decisions regarding the salvage operation. 

The field team rode to the crash site in vans. The UTTR road floats on the mud, and the 

capsule landed not that far off the road. McNamara had the collecting kits and instructed the 

field team members in how to document the collector pieces gathered at the crash site. The 

Lockheed people had to safe the pyros [pyrotechnics] that were not yet exploded. These pyros

should have deployed the parachute. LMA people had to do sniffing tests for toxic gases and get 

a safety clearance.

The SRC capsule had hit the ground “edge on,” like a dinner plate one third buried. Even 

though the lakebed was moist, and thus soft, the buried part of the SRC shell was mostly turned 

to powder. The field team started taking the outer capsule apart. Those of us near the cleanroom 

watched the fieldwork on long range video provided by UTTR. The canister containing the 

collectors was itself breached, it was broken. The bottom had been sheared off. After 

consultation with PI Burnett and Curation Manager Eileen Stansbery by radio, it was decided to 

roll the canister over onto a blue tarp, topside down because the canister cover was still intact. 

This configuration captured most of the collector fragments. It was overwrapped in a second 

tarp, put aboard an Army Blackhawk helicopter, and flown back to the building with the 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 27

cleanroom. The big black helicopter was larger than Cliff’s little red one. I was in the 

cleanroom area when the Blackhawk arrived with tarp-wrapped canister, before sunset.

ROSS-NAZZAL: How long did that process take?

ALLTON: The field team had to wait a couple hours before they actually started picking up

collector pieces—and they were still on long-range video, so we could watch them. The Army 

took out meals ready to eat for them to eat and water. It was hot out there on the dry lakebed. 

The Army folks knew what to do to help the recovery team. How long did that take? I’m 

thinking it was late afternoon by the time they got back to Building 1112, where the cleanroom 

was set up. The tarp-wrapped canister was rolled in. Over the next few hours there was some 

discussion as to whether the wrapped canister should be transported back to Houston for 

extraction of the individual collector pieces or whether to extract, photograph, and package the 

individual pieces at UTTR. 

The decision was the loose pieces would get more damaged in transport unless they were 

stabilized. So that’s what we did. We obtained tools for de-constructing the damaged canister so 

the collectors were accessible. We already had with us containers for 6,000 specimens. Our 

curation colleagues from Johnson Space Center arrived to document and package fragments. All 

of them were skilled in cleanroom work and handling astromaterial samples, so no on-the-job 

training was needed!

That was September 8, 2004, when Genesis reentered and had a “hard landing.” Always 

a public affairs term. October 3, which was less than a month later, we flew everything back to 

Houston on the Gulfstream III and had all the samples in a cleanroom receiving area by 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 28

afternoon. We spent that month in Utah picking fragments from the damaged canister, 

photographing, logging the individual pieces, and packaging collector pieces and hardware 

pieces. Some of the hardware pieces of the outer capsule went to Lockheed Martin first for use 

by the mishap investigation board. That was a separate activity, and Karen McNamara was the 

curation representative to that board. All the solar collectors and the payload canister came 

directly to JSC. 

While we were in Utah, we photographed and packaged more than 10,000 pieces from 

the original 301. Some of those were jars of very tiny fragments. Pick a number, it could be 

15,000, 20,000. I think we really got every collector fragment. The impact site ground was 

damp and soft. The outer capsule was about 60 inches across. It hit edge on, so the half portion 

that buried was destroyed, even though the impact area was quite small, maybe 3 diameters of 

the capsule. Karen McNamara and some of the Lockheed people went back a second day and 

actually shoveled up 15 to 20 buckets of sand containing debris. So, I really think we got nearly 

everything from the spacecraft. We went through some of those buckets recently. We got rid of 

the mud.

ROSS-NAZZAL: Did you find anything in the dirt?

ALLTON: Yes, a lot of it was not too useful. Then there were some collector fragments we 

pulled from the mud, which had been sitting in wet mud for 10 years or so. So we salvaged 

some of that, but we did finally discard some of the mud and crash debris that we had saved.

We do have samples of lakebed sediments that were taken right before re-entry, which 

serves as reference material. We still have those. People have asked for samples of the Utah 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 29

dirt, because they’re trying to distinguish between Utah dirt and solar wind. They have a basis 

for making that distinction. We do have those kind of samples. Curation-wise, we keep samples 

of reference materials, that would be anything that might contaminate the collectors. 

ROSS-NAZZAL: What did you package everything in? Did you package it in plastic or glass?

ALLTON: Pretty much plastic. We did have some glass jars. We used a lot of plastic vials, 

because that’s what’s used with some lunar samples that have been returned. Our cleaning 

process for hardware at JSC uses ultrapure water. Lots of plastic vials are cleaned to a high level 

of cleanliness and packaged. Since we are able to produce a lot of those, we sent several 

thousand vials to UTTR ahead of time.

We also could call our JSC colleagues and ask for additional supplies to be sent to 

UTTR. The wonders of the government credit card! The whole JSC team was very responsive. 

Everybody said, “What can I do to help?” We’d call JSC and say, “We need this, this, and this.” 

It would show up the next day in a FedEx [Corp.] truck. At first I was wondering if FedEx

delivered packages to the Utah Test and Training Range which is relatively remote, and I found 

out they do deliver there very promptly. We received clean packaging supplies this way.

Same way with JPL. They needed different tools and hardware because their job was 

disassembling the mangled mess of the science canister. First thing they did, was drive to Home 

Depot [Inc.] in Salt Lake City. One tool they purchased was a large bolt cutter. I too went to 

Salt Lake City to the restaurant supply place and Sam’s Club for things that we still needed more 

of like stainless steel tables. The JPL engineers could call back to JPL and say, “I need X.” 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 30

Everybody was sending things we needed, delivered the very next day. With a government 

credit card, a telephone, and FedEx, we got everything that we needed. 

A side note here on an image that remains in my mind. UTTR is isolated and the nearest 

cell phone tower, at that time, was atop Deseret Peak 30 miles distant, for which we had line of 

sight from the parking lot. Cell phones were not ubiquitous. To make those phone calls to 

request supplies, one had to stand in the parking lot. At any given time, 4-5 people would be in 

the parking lot with a phone to their ear, spread out for privacy, and trying to write using a knee 

for a table. Even the science team from around the world offered encouragement and help. 

Many of them emailed, said, “We’re going to do our best to make this analysis.” This 

encouragement was from investigators who had invested 5 to 10 years preparing for this mission.

ROSS-NAZZAL: Were you originally planning on taking the Gulfstream back with these samples,

or were you going to fly commercial?

ALLTON: Had the crash not happened, the science canister was to be placed on nitrogen purge 

and shipped in a large metal crate equipped with a nitrogen cylinder. I think it was going to go 

by truck but maybe cargo plane. By October 3rd we had all of the collector pieces and canister 

hardware packed for transport in metal cases. The managers requested the Gulfstream as a 

“gentle” transport to keep from further damaging the collectors. Carol [M.] Schwarz and I were 

selected to escort those samples, and of course we agreed! It was my first ride in the Gulfstream.

ROSS-NAZZAL: How did you get the Gulfstream? That’s a unique opportunity. Not everyone 

gets to fly on that plane.
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 31

ALLTON: It was partly a perk for having stayed out there over a month and working long hours. 

ROSS-NAZZAL: It’s just for Center leadership, isn’t it, pretty much, the Gulfstream? At least it 

seems like it.

ALLTON: I think we had an astronaut pilot.

ROSS-NAZZAL: Oh, cool.

ALLTON: It was cool.

ROSS-NAZZAL: What was the reception like here when you finally came back? The Building 31 

crew and then the Center as well. Do you remember?

ALLTON: I remember we landed in a horrid rainstorm at Ellington [Airport, Houston, Texas]. 

Then we just unloaded the plane, and it must have been vans. I cannot remember that. It was a 

short trip from Ellington. We had a clean room we had set up for space-exposed hardware, so 

that’s where we put the boxes that we had unloaded from the Gulfstream at Ellington. Then a 

portion of those were moved into Genesis Lab. 

Lisa [A.] Fletcher (now Lisa Pace) had done an excellent job of logging thousands of 

samples in Utah. We had prenumbered tags with all these vials. We had a numbering system set 

up ahead of time for all this, so we had all these numbers to put on clean vials and whatever we 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 32

put stuff in. All that was in a database, it was all logged in there in Utah, so we could check it 

out when we got back.

ROSS-NAZZAL: What did you start when you came back? Were you immediately cataloging or 

curating?

ALLTON: I’m going to digress here a little bit. If things had gone perfectly, some of us would 

have had to fly back and stay up all night cleaning more tools to get ready for examination and 

storage of samples, because there was just too much to do. 

The landing changed all that, so we didn’t have to do those special examinations of 

complete hexagons. It gave us a little time to think about it. We got samples into a dry nitrogen 

environment, for the most part, and we already had a database set up, with our numbering

scheme, but now we had a little bit different data problem. We had some things like that to work 

out. 

We got the samples back here in the JSC lab in October. We wrote some abstracts 

announcing the condition of the collection that were submitted in January, so that was part of it. 

I think the one I did was based a lot on notes we took in Utah. We were able to announce that 

we had samples for scientists to request before the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference

[LPSC] in 2005.

ROSS-NAZZAL: That quickly?
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 33

ALLTON: Yes. Now some of the experiments were for certain PIs. One of them had flown gold 

foil to look for nitrogen, another one flew a polished aluminum piece to look at noble gases. So 

we subdivided those materials in time for the abstracts that year. That’s what we would have 

been doing in the November, December timeframe. 

For instance, Alex [Alexander P.] Meshik came from Washington University [St. Louis, 

Missouri] to JSC, and we cut the polished aluminum up. He took some pieces back to his 

laboratory. We cut the gold foil—that might have been a little bit later, the timing on that. But 

we did announce it, I think, at the end of February and before LPSC of that year. In April, the 

LANL concentrator team came to JSC and we finished removing the concentrator target 

quadrants from the mounting. This included the silicon carbide target in which the oxygen 

isotopes were determined. In 2007, we sent that sample to Kevin [D.] McKeegan at UCLA

[University of California, Los Angeles], who did the analysis, and presented preliminary results 

at LPSC in 2009. 

ROSS-NAZZAL: Tell me how you handle the samples. I’ve been in 31, and you see the glove 

boxes and handling. Do you have something similar for these samples, or are they just out on 

tables?

ALLTON: The samples are stored in nitrogen-purged cabinets within the Class 10 cleanroom 

where we also work on the samples. When we image or subdivide the samples, this work is done 

on stainless tables within the room. The samples have been exposed to Earth atmosphere when 

the canister broke open, but they’re stored under dry nitrogen. People are fully suited up, and the 

tools that are used are cleaned with ultrapure water.
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 34

We’ve developed the capability to take those pieces that have fine debris on them and 

wash them with ultrapure water. We can wash away the loose micron, submicron size particles, 

and that helps people with their analyses. We don’t clean samples routinely, because there is a 

worry that the water might change something. 

The analyses so far—when they use beam instruments to measure solar wind—seem to 

indicate that that cleaning with ultrapure water does not do much damage, and it is more 

beneficial. But that would be the call of the person who wants to make the analysis if he would 

like us to clean them off with the water, so we can do that.

I guess one difference with Genesis—part of the science team has helped try and figure 

out how to clean these things. We send samples back and forth to people who might have a 

cleaning proposal for a protocol to try. We do have numerous small pieces that can be used for 

that purpose. It’s probably a good use of those pieces. The oversight committee is aware of all 

this and keeps tabs on how this is done.

For UPW cleaning of samples, picture the room: stainless steel table and stainless steel 

tweezers. Samples are placed on a little vacuum chuck and held under megasonically-energized 

UPW. The sample is spun at 3,000 rpm [revolutions per minute] under the flowing water. It’s a 

semiconductor device that we adapted for cleaning off these small parts.

ROSS-NAZZAL: How does that work so you don’t get rid of those small grains of that solar wind?

ALLTON: The atoms of the solar wind hit the collectors with such high energy they’re implanted

a little below the surface, say under 100 nanometers (nm). The peak might be 40 nm deep or 20, 

which isn’t very much. Chemical changes on the surface from cleaning might affect atoms at 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 35

that shallow depth, so care must be taken. Plus, dings or scratches from the crash debris can be 

deeper than the solar wind. 

We’re lucky in that a lot of the analytical techniques use an ion beam to drill into the 

collector, knocking off solar atoms that can be measured in a mass spec [spectrometer]. The area 

analyzed this way is quite small, less than 100 microns wide. Therefore, the analyst can pick a 

location on the fragment without scratches or gouges. Even so there are problems if there’s

contamination on the top surface. The ion beam can garden the contaminant further into the 

surface. Investigators found a clever way around this problem. The collector fragment is glued 

face down (solar wind side down), and the ion beam analysis is performed from the back side, 

thereby measuring the solar wind before the contaminant is encountered. Investigators are 

getting more successful at that. This example illustrates a very important advantage of returning 

samples to Earth for analysis—many more options for recovering from disaster, like crashes or 

malfunctions.

ROSS-NAZZAL: How many of the samples have been used? Are there some like the Apollo 

rocks that have been set aside and will remain pristine for generations to come?

ALLTON: I’d like to acknowledge that setting aside portions of Apollo samples for future 

generations was a very wise thing to do. All of the astromaterial collections do this, generally by 

choosing a portion to be set aside, stored sealed under nitrogen, and a subset stored in a remote 

place. A year or two after sample return, about 2006, representative samples for each solar wind 

regime and each array collector material were preserved in a vault in a remote location from JSC. 

For the samples remaining as JSC, Genesis has a complicated sample retention plan that allows 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 36

the portions to be retained recalculated periodically, based on the idea that these samples may 

have a shelf life, which is unknown. The solar wind atoms are embedded in the crystal structure

of the collector. They could diffuse out with long periods of time. 

Fifteen different materials were flown to collect solar wind. The materials on the passive 

collector arrays, flown as hexagonal shapes polished like mirrors—very beautiful—were mostly 

pure silicon. Others were diamond on silicon, sapphire, aluminum on sapphire, gold on sapphire, 

silicon on sapphire and germanium. These 300 hexagons were distributed over 5 arrays. Two of 

these arrays collected solar wind atoms for the entire exposure time of 27 months. We called 

those samples bulk solar wind. The solar wind isn’t constant, but changes character with time 

among 3 conditions, or regimes, as distinguished by the Genesis spacecraft: interstream slow 

speed, high speed, or coronal mass ejections (CME). The CMEs are sporadic burps of material. 

Because of the suggestions, and perhaps insistence, to Don Burnett by Marcia Neugebauer 

during the very early mission concept discussions, the Genesis spacecraft was designed to 

capture separately these 3 regimes on individual arrays.

The separate arrays for each regime allows investigators to measure differences in 

chemical and isotopic composition and fluence among solar wind regimes. The deployment of 

the regime arrays was mutually exclusive, and each regime collected solar wind for roughly one 

third of the total exposure. Had Genesis not crashed, the identification of the regime hexagon 

collectors would have been straightforward. Because of the crash, what we recovered was a 

jumble of fragments dislodged from the array frames. However, we can tell from which regime 

for each fragment because of clever planning. Bulk solar wind collectors are all 700 microns 

thick. Coronal mass ejections are 650 microns thick, high speed 600, low speed 550. So we just 

take a little tiny fragment and measure how thick it is, then we know which regime of the solar 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 37

wind. Eileen Stansbery and Andy Stone deserve credit for implementing this mission saving 

idea. 

The concentrator’s target samples would be those that would be most judiciously saved 

for people that can make the very best measurements on it. There’s one piece of silicon carbide 

from which UCLA determined the solar oxygen isotopes. Subsequently that same sample piece 

was sent to Bernard Marty in France [Centre de Recherches Pétrographiques et Géochimiques, 

Nancy Université], who measured the nitrogen isotopes. Neon isotopes were measured by a 

Swiss team. Much science was accomplished by sequentially sharing the sample among several 

research teams. Each team made their own little ion beam holes, resulting in a sample 

appearance with a many small square shallow pits. Sharing is another alternative to subdividing 

samples. 

ROSS-NAZZAL: Who makes the decision on who gets the samples? Is there a committee? You 

mentioned an oversight committee. Are you part of that team?

ALLTON: The request for Genesis research samples comes to me as curator. I acknowledge 

receipt of the request and pass it along to the Genesis subcommittee of CAPTEM (Curation and 

Planning Team for Extraterrestrial Materials), a sample science advisory committee for NASA.

The Genesis subcommittee is composed of active or emeritus Genesis scientists, and I provide to 

them information about sample availability. They render a finding about the scientific merit and 

recommendation about allocating sample, which I forward to the program scientists at NASA 

Headquarters [Washington, DC] for concurrence. As curator, I’m allowed to make a few direct 

allocations of small samples for cleaning studies. That’s just to speed things up. The 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 38

overarching goal of this review process is to assure good science use of samples and fair access 

among researchers. 

The Genesis sample allocation process is less formal than the larger collections like 

Apollo and Antarctic meteorites, because it involves ongoing review via email or telecon, which 

includes conversational exchanges between curator and requestor to clarify information. In 

contrast, the larger collections have review committees that meet face-to-face twice a year and 

catalogs of samples from which the investigator requests a specific sample. A Genesis 

investigator typically requests a specific material from a specific regime for which the curator 

searches for sample candidates for discussion.

ROSS-NAZZAL: What have we learned from Genesis? Have there been any big questions 

answered?

ALLTON: Let me start by saying that Genesis mission highest priority science goal was 

determination of the oxygen isotopic composition of the Sun, and that was achieved. The 

general science goal was to determine the precise composition of the solar nebula—the gas and 

dust that coalesced into the Sun and planets, with the Sun retaining more than 99% of the 

original starting material. Until Genesis, the composition of the solar nebula was measured by 

precision analyses of primitive, first-formed minerals found in oldest meteorites and assuming 

this was original composition of the solar nebula. Genesis people contended that the best 

measurement of the starting material for the Sun and planets would be obtained directly 

analyzing solar material in the best laboratories on Earth; hence, the Genesis spacecraft set out to 

capture solar material and return it to Earth. The oxygen isotopic composition was surprising 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 39

because it was not like the Earth’s, lending support, along with Stardust cometary analysis, to a 

more turbulent history in the early solar system.

Until now, people were concentrating on bulk solar wind analysis because there’s more 

solar wind available to measure in these samples. The newest thing is people looking at regime 

samples. It turns out in 2003, at the end of October, they had a whopping series of coronal mass 

ejections [CME] over a few days. In fact, the CME energy went off scale from some of the other 

robotic spacecraft that detect these things, causing some to go into “safe” mode. Genesis just 

happened to have a coronal mass ejection array out which captured this big, energetic burp of 

solar material. These energetic CMEs became known as the Halloween storms, and Genesis has 

samples of this solar material that can be measured in the laboratory.

I’m optimistic that somehow we’ll make more connections with the heliophysicists 

because solar atoms captured in the different Genesis regime samples should contribute to ideas 

about mechanisms for how the Sun operates. That wasn’t really the primary purpose of Genesis 

mission. Genesis was for planetary science. However, Genesis data may also help solar physics 

people of this generation, like those using Parker Solar Probe data, perhaps.

Marcia Neugebauer, heliophysicist at JPL and early Suess-Urey/Genesis mission 

contributor, was the first person to use Mariner [Program] data to make solar wind

measurements. I think it was Marcia that convinced Don Burnett that he needed to take the solar 

wind regimes as separate samples. It didn’t seem to be that much of an add-on for design of the 

mechanisms, because altogether Genesis had very simple mechanisms. People worry about 

reliability of robotic missions, and this was a fairly simple spacecraft. All those mechanisms

worked well in flight.
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 40

ROSS-NAZZAL: I had forgotten to ask you. Did you go out and see the launch at the Cape

[Canaveral, Florida]? Did you get a chance to see that?

ALLTON: I went to the Cape to see it launch, but we didn’t launch that day, or the next, and I 

came home. Eileen was the only one from our team who stayed the rest of the week.

ROSS-NAZZAL: That’s disappointing.

ALLTON: We hustled to get Genesis out the door to Denver, so it could be integrated onto the 

spacecraft in August of 2000. Then we had to sit and wait a whole year, because there was a 

Mars launch of some kind that needed that launch window.

ROSS-NAZZAL: Hurry up and wait, I guess.

ALLTON: Hurry up and wait.

ROSS-NAZZAL: How many people are working in the lab these days?

ALLTON: There’s two people that we call processors that work with the samples, and they’re 

doing inventory as we speak.
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 41

ROSS-NAZZAL: That sounds like fun. What do you think your biggest challenge is working with 

the Genesis Program, from the time you started working on the contamination control plan until

today? Do you have any major challenges?

ALLTON: I have to say, I think we all had it lucky. The team worked well together. When I look 

at other missions and other teams—Don Burnett is the principal reason for this. He still holds a 

meeting every year of the people who are interested in working on Genesis samples. Many of 

the people that come are back from the original team. He refers to the team as family. In 

recovering from the crash, he asked people to collaborate who might normally be competing. 

They did. One, because they respected Don, and two, they wanted to help salvage the mission 

science. And I’m beginning to see that it’s unusual for relationships to work that well. 

The annual gathering of the science team family is about 40 researchers today. In the 8-

10 years after sample return, the team photos show about 80 people. Don once estimated 100 

scientists have participated on the science team. There were strong bonds of friendship among 

the engineers, scientists, and curators that outlasted the mission status of Genesis. 

On the 5th anniversary of sample return, about 20 people—many were technicians who 

helped salvage the samples from the desert floor—made a pilgrimage to UTTR to set a steel 

obelisk bearing the name “Genesis” and “September 8, 2004” to mark the landing spot. Inside 

the obelisk a time capsule was placed. The contents are mission documents and procedures, 

including a video of mid-air retrieval practice. JPL Genesis Project Manager Don Sweetnam 

personally commissioned the making of the marker. Now retired, Don Sweetnam still follows

the Genesis science results. 
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 42

ROSS-NAZZAL: You attribute that to Don? Or were there other factors?

ALLTON: Mostly to Don.

ROSS-NAZZAL: Probably holds a special place in your heart then.

ALLTON: Yes.

ROSS-NAZZAL: What do you think was your most significant contribution to the Genesis 

Program?

ALLTON: I guess overall I’m kind of a stickler for looking at the composition of everything that 

goes into the lab and checking it. But I could say they kind of hold me responsible for having 

them send 6,000 containers to Utah, just in case.

ROSS-NAZZAL: Were you a Girl Scout? That was good contingency planning on your part.

ALLTON: Yes, we ran that one out as much as we could ahead of time.

ROSS-NAZZAL: I think that we have exhausted my questions. I wasn’t sure—might there be 

something else that you want to talk about in relation to Genesis?
NASA Johnson Space Center Oral History Project Judith H. Allton

12 October 2017 43

ALLTON: No, because we touched on the future, and I’m hoping that solar physics people, that 

we can be of service to them. I don’t know at what rate samples ought to be used up. I come 

from a background of being extremely stingy with samples from lunar days, but I also realize 

that these samples may not always be perfect.

ROSS-NAZZAL: Yes, that’s important to know. Thank you so much for coming over today, I 

really appreciate it.

[End of interview]