MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2941636727

EURO-CARES: GETTING EUROPE READY FOR SAMPLE RETURN MISSIONS - AN EMPHASIS ON RESTRICTED MISSIONS.

2018· article· en· W2941636727 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aurore Hützler, L. Ferrière, Allan Bennett, S. S. Russell, C. L. Smith, J. Aléon, L. Berthoud, J. C. Bridges, J. R. Brucato, Vinciane Debaille, Ben Dryer, L. Folco, I. Franchi, M. Gounelle, M. M. Grady, Michael Guest, J. W. Holt, Stefan Leuko, A. Longobardo, Yves Marrocchi, Sandro Matussi, A. Meneghin, E. Palomba, Thomas Pottage, Petra Rettberg, A. Rotundi, John Vrublevskis, Francès Westall, J. Zipfel

Notice bibliographique

Revueelib (German Aerospace Center) · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiquePlanetary Science and Exploration
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesEuropean Commission
Mots-clésSample (material)Mars Exploration ProgramEngineeringBusinessAstrobiology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,019
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,098

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0190,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0050,007
Science ouverte0,0020,010
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0130,006

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,043
Tête enseignante GPT0,307
Écart entre enseignants0,264 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueelib (German Aerospace Center)Même sujetPlanetary Science and ExplorationTravaux en français237 207