EURO-CARES: GETTING EUROPE READY FOR SAMPLE RETURN MISSIONS - AN EMPHASIS ON RESTRICTED MISSIONS.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
EURO-CARES (European Curation of Astromaterials Returned from Exploration of Space) was a three year (2015-2017) multinational project funded under the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 research programme. The objective of EURO-CARES was to create a roadmap for the implementation of a European Extra-terrestrial Sample Curation Facility (ESCF) suitable for the curation of samples from all possible return missions, to the Moon, asteroids, Mars, and other bodies of the Solar System. Here we summarize the main recommendations from the final project report for design and infrastructure requirements to allow the curation of samples from restricted bodies such as Mars. Over the course of the project, the team has visited various facilities and companies, to gather best practices, bring innovative ideas, and build a strong network with the international sample curation community. Visits were made to the astromaterials curation facilities of NASA and JAXA, and to related facilities from the nuclear, cleanroom and BSL-4 sectors. Two successful collaborations with architects (Space architecture department of the Technical University of Vienna (Austria), then Merrick and Co. in Kanata (Canada) [1]) resulted in the development of more refined requirements and tentative designs for a Mars Sample Return (MSR) facility. All possible activities that would take place in a MSR facility were first identified. All activities related to receiving, assessing, and opening the Earth Return Capsule are performed in a Sample Receiving Facility. Further activities, such as curation, Sample Early Characterization, andstorage would be performed in a Sample Curation Facility (SCF). The SCF would also include a suite of instruments necessary for analyses defined in a Biohazard Assessment Protocol and for Life Detection. In addition, an Analogue and Mock-Up Facility (to be constructed first) would be used to assemble an analogue material collection, to test instruments and building materials/techniques, and to train staff members. A MSR facility needs to integrate both cleanliness and containment principles, to keep the samples pristine, and to fulfill the Planetary Protection requirement of having a probability of release P<10−6 for an unsterilized particle larger than 0.1 µm [2]. Primary enclosures for restricted samples were considered: depending on the activities, it was recommended that cabinets similar to the ones used in BSL-4 laboratories, or Double-Wall Isolators should be used [3]. Laminar flow cleanrooms were recommended for limiting cross-contamination while allowing flexibility in the future. Because of the European nature of the project, the facility should be located in Europe. Other parameters, such as limited natural hazards, countries with histories of BSL-4 laboratories and space exploration expertise, would also need to be taken into consideration. Owing to so many uncertainties and decisions to be taken (such as the possible widespread use of robotics), it is impossible to evaluate a precise financial cost for such a facility, however, we estimate that a fully fitted MSR facility would cost at least 200 M€. Location, use of robots, cleanroom regime, instrumentation capacities, etc. are amongst the parameters that can drive the costs for the initial construction, and during the life of the facility. It is estimated that a minimum of 7 to 10 years would be necessary to define the requirements, design, build, and commission the facility, while training the necessary staff. It is highly probable that such a facility will have various funding partners (space agencies, institutions, countries, etc.); a complex financial arrangement takes time to come to completion. A MSR facility is a complex project, not only for the engineering aspects but also for financial and political reasons. In view of the timeline of sample return missions from Mars, it is imperative to move forward with this project as soon as possible. The design we developed encompasses the principles of Flexibility, Modularity, and Adaptability. References: [1] Hutzler A. et al. (2017) 47th ICES, 323. [2] Ammann W., et al. (2012. ESF-ESSC Study Group on Mars Sample Return Requirements, ISBN: 978-2-918428-67-1. [3] Vrublevskis J. B. et al. (2016) EURO-CARES WP3 Meeting, p. 27. Acknowledgements: This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no 640190.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».