Analytical Needs in a Sample Receiving Facility: Input from the MSR Operation Definition Team

Aurore Hutzler; Lindsay Hays; James Benardini; Enrica Bonato; Andrea Harrington; Richard Mattingly; Michael Calaway; Francois Gaubert; Alvin Smith; Julia Donnerer

NASA NTRS · 20220002648

Analytical Needs in a Sample Receiving Facility: Input from the MSR Operation Definition Team

Aurore Hutzler·Lindsay Hays·James Benardini·Enrica Bonato·Andrea Harrington·Richard Mattingly·Michael Calaway·Francois Gaubert·Alvin Smith·Julia Donnerer

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

Mars Sample Return Curation Astromaterials

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Aurore Hutzler, Lindsay Hays, James Benardini, Enrica Bonato, Andrea Harrington, Richard Mattingly, Michael Calaway, Francois Gaubert, Alvin Smith, Julia Donnerer. Analytical Needs in a Sample Receiving Facility: Input from the MSR Operation Definition Team. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20220002648

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

NASA NTRS2025

A Minority Report Submitted as an Addendum to the Report of the Mars 2020 Organic Contamination Panel

This Minority Report (MR) presents seven findings in addition to or contrary to the main OCP report: 1. Contamination control for the Mars 2020 cache must be strict. Mars’ surface is known to be organics-poor from laboratory studies, Mars meteorite analyses, and from four previous NASA missions. It is imperative that contamination control measures are enacted that enable reliable and robust detection of potential biomarker compounds at the ppb level. 2. Since Mars 2020 is a sample return mission and analyses of samples in the returnable cache are expected to occur after return to Earth, positive controls are not recommended for flight on Mars 2020 unless a compelling case can be made for their use. 3. The findings of previous panels dedicated to organic compound analysis in Martian samples (OCSSG, ND-SAG, SDT) recommend TOC limits between 10-40 ppb. The MR finds that the lower limit of 10 ppb is recommended and that insufficient justification is given by the OCP Panel Report (PR) to raise the TOC limit to 40 ppb. 4. Analytical capability is sufficiently advanced that analytical capability is an irrelevant consideration with respect to differentiating between 10 and 40 ppb TOC. 5. Perceived contamination control challenges are an irrelevant consideration for raising the TOC contamination limit from 10 to 40 ppb since those challenges, and the procedures to ameliorate them, will exist regardless of whether the limit is 10 or 40 ppb. 6. The “dilution cleaning” method has not been adequately proven for utilization on the Mars 2020 mission. Shortcomings have been identified in terms of peer review, method verification, analytical and testing approach, application to space flight hardware, and performance under Martian conditions. The method should be revisited and independently tested using statistically and analytically robust methods, and scrutinized in a rigorous peer review process. 7. The Mars 2020 mission claims considerable heritage from the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission, but MSL contamination control efforts contain significant errors and implementation discrepancies that would imperil the Mars 2020 caching mission were they repeated. A standing contamination control panel should be formed to provide independent oversight for the Mars 2020 mission.

Mars Sample Return↗

NASA NTRS2024

The Planetary Protection Strategy of Mars Sample Return’s Earth Return Orbiter Mission

The Mars Sample Return campaign aims to use three flight missions and one ground element to safely bring rock cores, regolith and atmospheric samples from the surface of Mars to Earth to answer key questions about the geologic and climate history of Mars, including the potential for ancient life. Since its landing in Jezero Crater in 2021, the first mission, NASA’s Mars 2020, has collected a number of samples on the crater floor and on the delta using the Perseverance rover. Subsequent missions would recover the sealed sample tubes, launch them into Mars orbit, and transport them back to Earth. The ground element would be a high-containment facility that would isolate and protect the samples during initial sample characterization, which would include sample safety assessments and time-sensitive scientific investigations. These elements are currently in the planning and design stages of development, and represent an international effort of NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and many industry partners. The work presented here provides an overview of the planetary protection strategy of the third flight mission, the ESA-led Earth Return Orbiter, which hosts the NASA-provided Capture, Containment, and Return System. The orbiter would detect and capture the container with up to 30 sealed tubes previously put in Martian orbit, contain them in redundant containers to ensure that no potentially hazardous Mars particles are released, and return them to Earth through an entry vehicle. Both NASA and ESA policies comply with the United Nations’ Outer Space Treaty by planning to protect Earth’s biosphere from any potential adverse effects from material returned from solar system bodies beyond the Earth-Moon system. In the conduct of Mars Sample Return, the two agencies have mutually agreed to apply approaches consistent with their own planetary protection standards to the campaign elements they each provide.

Mars Sample Return↗

NASA NTRS2023

The Planetary Protection Strategy of Mars Sample Return’s Earth Return Orbiter Mission

The Mars Sample Return campaign aims to use three flight missions and one ground element to safely bring rock cores, regolith and atmospheric samples from the surface of Mars to Earth to answer key questions about the geologic and climate history of Mars, including the potential for ancient life. Since its landing in Jezero Crater in 2021, the first mission, NASA’s Mars 2020, has collected a number of samples on the crater floor and on the delta using the Perseverance rover. Subsequent missions would recover the sealed sample tubes, launch them into Mars orbit, and transport them back to Earth. The ground element would be a high-containment facility that would isolate and protect the samples during initial sample characterization, which would include sample safety assessments and time-sensitive scientific investigations. These elements are currently in the planning and design stages of development, and represent an international effort of NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and many industry partners. The work presented here provides an overview of the planetary protection strategy of the third flight mission, the ESA-led Earth Return Orbiter (ERO), which hosts the NASA-provided Capture, Containment, and Return System (CCRS). ERO-CCRS would capture the container with up to 30 sealed tubes previously put in Martian orbit, contain them in redundant containers to ensure that no potentially hazardous Mars particles are released, and return them to Earth through an entry vehicle. Both NASA and ESA policies comply with the United Nations’ Outer Space Treaty by planning to protect Earth’s biosphere from any potential adverse effects from material returned from solar system bodies beyond the Earth-Moon system. In the conduct of Mars Sample Return, the two agencies have agreed to apply approaches consistent with their own planetary protection standards to the campaign elements each provides.

Mars Sample Return↗