The following is in regards to two recently published NASA Interim Directives. I recognize the large amount of work that is necessary to assemble policy directives, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for those involved in the creation of these documents. My critiques here are a reflective of my own understanding of planetary protection field and the associated nuances of coupling human exploration with scientific goals. This post does not reflect the opinions of any of the institutions with which I am affiliated. NID 8715.129 explicitly mentions that “the greater capability that human explorers can contribute to the astrobiological exploration of Mars is only valid if human-associated contamination is controlled and understood," (1.2.2b) which, upon initial reading, seems to align with the feelings of most astrobiologists and researchers. That is, that we should postpone manned exploration missions of Mars until such a point where there are reasonable harm reduction methods in place for human contamination, we have a sufficiently developed understanding of the potential habitable (not inhabited) niches of the Martian surface and have completed reproducible mixed-community experiments assessing microbiology survival and reproduction at each stage of a Mars mission. Note that this is not associated with any particular timeline, as it will be primarily bound by funding available. However, further in the NID, 'human space exploration' and science are listed as separate items (1.3.1). This seems to reflect the view of the current administration in that proving the ability of the US to simply 'go further' is an inherently honourable goal: it subtly underscores the fact that the current government views science and preserving the space environment for future study as - at best - secondary objectives. President Trump's April 6th Executive Order on Encouraging International Support for the Recovery and Use of Space Resources gives the distinct impression that commercial development of space resources by US commercial entities may well precede scientific discovery in the order of American priorities, particularly as implied by the line "Americans should have the right to engage in commercial exploration, recovery, and use of resources in outer space, consistent with applicable law" (Section 1 of said order). While this executive order is initially presented as necessary to allow the use of space resources to further the construction of lunar infrastructure for an international benefit, that's contrasted by the above-cited line paired with the unfortunate decision to use a quote from Mr Trump touting the glories of colonialism on the associated fact sheet (https://bit.ly/2ZByaAp). It is thus pretty clear that this is a politically motivated move to gain further commercial backing and is an arguably myopic decision. Overall, nothing stated in NID 8715.129 is particularly ground-breaking, nor falls outside the realm of common sense. The activities outlined in the directive are all things that I would consider as a basic necessity before conducting missions of this scope. However, particularly in section 1.3.3, the NID fails to qualify what NASA deems as minimum necessary research to fill some of the mentioned knowledge gaps. This provides the opportunity for the US government to force a contraction of what is sufficient to address these gaps in order to adhere to the tight timeline demanded by President Trump. Cut corners will likely disproportionately impact scientific activities, as many aspects of space science (particularly in paleoenvironment studies) can be (and historically has been) framed as an unnecessary partisan activity whereas other mission components - as an obvious example, well-tested crew life support - are inherently bipartisan. Concerning NID 8715.128, I do appreciate the direct acknowledgement of the need to provide publicly available inventories of bioburden on Category II-L mission materials. However, I am concerned about the precedent set by reassigning the bulk of Moon missions to Category I. While I do not directly object to the reassignment, it is unclear how much of this decision was made in conjunction with COSPAR and other international agencies. The COSPAR Planetary Protection recommendations are already not legally binding, nor is there any executable internationally-mediated consequence for flaunting them. If, as it appears, the US was acting essentially autonomously in the decision to re-categorize these missions, this sets the stage for future reassignment of more sensitive missions in order expedite American exploration and/or lower costs for private contractors and commercial entities. This could have potentially irreparable consequences for sciences as well as for international cooperation in space. In essence, the NIDs appear to fall much along the same lines as the recently published principles of the Artemis Accords. That is, they are subtle and unnecessary reframings of the existing ideas of the Outer Space Treaty, COPUOS, and COSPAR PPP among other international bodies in order to prioritize the role of the USA, and in particular, prioritize the ideologies of the current administration.
0 Comments
|
AuthorUncoordinated scientist who isn't sure how she hasn't fallen off a boat yet. Archives
November 2020
Categories |