NASA states that established policies are general in nature and may require specific procedural requirements for full implementation.
The committee writing the 'Review and Assessment of Planetary Protection Policy' believes that NASA’s planetary protection policy should be developed as a set of guiding principles that point to a course of action to accomplish clearly articulated goals.
NASA uses the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) planetary protection policy as its principal guidance, although the COSPAR policy is not binding on member states unless those states choose to adopt it.
The NASA astrobiology program defined two seminal questions in 1995 to guide solar system exploration: 'Where did we come from?' and 'Are we alone?'
The development of planetary protection policies involves the intertwined roles of NASA, the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), and the National Academies Space Studies Board.
NASA's planetary protection policy is required to establish clear responsibilities for leadership within the agency for formulating and executing the agency's plans.
The National Academies report responds to a request from NASA to examine the history of planetary protection policy, assess the current policy development process, and provide recommendations.
The committee recommends creating a more arms-length relationship within NASA between the personnel responsible for developing planetary protection policies and the personnel responsible for implementing the requirements derived from those policies to create a greater sense of equity and fairness.
NASA has played an influential role in the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) process for determining, reviewing, and updating the COSPAR planetary protection policy, and has used these guidelines to justify its own implementing requirements and processes.
NASA's next two major strategic science missions with significance for life detection and planetary protection are the Mars 2020 mission and the Europa Clipper.
False-positive results in space exploration would likely have international repercussions because they would impact all missions to the relevant body, such as Mars, rather than just those launched by NASA.
NASA requested that the committee provide an interim report addressing the rationales for and goals of planetary protection, as well as a working definition of planetary protection.
On April 25, 2018, Pete Worden informed the Committee on an Astrobiology Science Strategy for the Search for Life in the Universe that the Breakthrough Foundation was in advanced discussions with NASA to initiate a project to send "chipsats" to Europa and/or Enceladus.
NASA defines "back contamination" as the control of contamination of the Earth and the Moon by extraterrestrial material collected and returned by robotic missions.
Private-sector entities may generate interest in Mars exploration, either by undertaking their own missions or by providing goods and services to NASA.
NASA defines policy as the philosophies, fundamental values, and general direction of the Agency or Center used to determine present and future decisions.
NASA is planning human missions to Mars in future decades.
Formal but limited consultations regarding the planetary protection implications of the SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy test flight took place between NASA, the Federal Aviation Administration, and SpaceX.
NASA defines "forward contamination" as the control of terrestrial microbial contamination associated with robotic space vehicles intended to land, orbit, flyby, or otherwise encounter extraterrestrial solar system bodies.
NASA could extend its leadership in planetary protection policy by convening periodic updates on the ethical implications of space exploration.
Traditional government agencies, such as NASA, pursue broader geopolitical and technological objectives through human exploration missions to Mars.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine committee delivered its interim report on planetary protection policy to NASA on June 7, 2017.
A false-positive result concerning a sample return from Mars would not constitute a hazard to Earth or Mars in planetary protection terms, but it could lead to restrictions on future activities on Mars and require assessment by NASA officials.
NASA, the United States federal government, and the international community currently lack planetary protection policy development processes capable of responding to the expansion in the number of actors and types of space activities.
NASA requires a comprehensive planetary protection strategic plan that identifies future missions needing early guidance, establishes investment priorities for research and technology, creates a process for independent expert advice and peer review, assesses legacy requirements, improves the translation of policy into mission requirements, and engages federal and international communities regarding sample return and human missions to Mars.