Analytical Needs in a Sample Receiving Facility: Input from the MSR Operation Definition Team
The return of scientifically selected samples from Mars would provide a rare opportunity forinvestigation with the full range of the latest technology available, but to take full advantageof this opportunity, it is important to plan ahead to ensure the pristine nature of the samplesupon arrival within the Earth environment until scientific investigations can begin.The NASA/ESA science community-driven MSR Science Planning Group – Phase 2 (MSPG2)delivered recommendations and guidance regarding curation (1) and science (2, 3) activities tobe performed on the samples under containment. High-level requirements for the infrastruc-ture were also developed by MSPG2 (4). In order to prepare infrastructure-targeted input forthe ESA and NASA facility studies planned in the 2022-2023 timeframe, the agency-led MSROperational Scenarios Definition Team (MOSDT) was assembled to conceptualize the sampleoperations that will inform future architecture teams. Emphasis was placed on the respon-sibility of MOSDT to use community-defined requirements and to represent the view of the international scientific community.All necessary and sufficient instruments and analytical needs described in MSPG2 were inte-grated in MOSDT main deliverable, the operational workflow (see Hays et al, this conference).In MSPG2, notional instruments were split between curation analytical needs, and objective-driven (time-sensitive and sterilization-sensitive) science analytical needs. In MOSDT, whilethe first phases of curation, “pre-Basic Characterization” and “Basic Characterization” wererather streamlined and separate from other analytical needs, “Preliminary Examination” and“Science” instruments were not always physically segregated. In addition to the necessary andsufficient instruments described by MSPG2, the MOSDT recommended additional supportequipment for sterilization, cleanliness and contamination monitoring.It was sometimes necessary for the MOSDT to rely on assumptions to integrate instruments inthe activity workflow. In general, the assumptions were very conservative to limit contaminationand cross-contamination risks. It is expected that future work to refine limits of contaminationwill enable optimization of instrumentation.The community was consulted during the course of the MOSDT work. This abstract’s aimis two-fold: on one hand, inform the scientific community and overall MSR stakeholders, tobring their attention on the analytical needs currently considered as necessary and sufficient;on the other hand, to solicit feedback from a larger community audience to optimize and refineanalytical needs during the next phases of MSR ground-segment preparation.Disclaimer: The decision to implement Mars Sample Return will not be finalized until NASA’scompletion of the program’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. This docu-ment is being made available for informational purposes only.[1] Tait et al. (2021) Preliminary planning for Mars Sample Return (MSR) curation activities ina Sample Receiving Facility (SRF). Astrobiology in press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0105. [2] Toscaet al. (2021) Time-sensitive aspects of Mars Sample Return (MSR) science. Astrobiologyin press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0115. [3] Velbel et al. (2021) Planning implications relatedto sterilization-sensitive science investigations associated with Mars Sample Return (MSR).Astrobiology in press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0113. [4] Carrier et al. (2021) Science and curationconsiderations for the design of a Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF).Astrobiology in press, doi:10.1089/ast.2021.0110.