Recommended Maximum Temperature for Mars Returned Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Returned Sample Science Board (RSSB) was established in 2015 by NASA to provide expertise from the planetary sample community to the Mars 2020 Project. The RSSB's first task was to address the effect of heating during acquisition and storage of samples on scientific investigations that could be expected to be conducted if the samples are returned to Earth. Sample heating may cause changes that could ad-versely affect scientific investigations. Previous studies of temperature requirements for returned mar-tian samples fall within a wide range (-73 to 50 degrees Centigrade) and, for mission concepts that have a life detection component, the recommended threshold was less than or equal to -20 degrees Centigrade. The RSSB was asked by the Mars 2020 project to determine whether or not a temperature requirement was needed within the range of 30 to 70 degrees Centigrade. There are eight expected temperature regimes to which the samples could be exposed, from the moment that they are drilled until they are placed into a temperature-controlled environment on Earth. Two of those - heating during sample acquisition (drilling) and heating while cached on the Martian surface - potentially subject samples to the highest temperatures. The RSSB focused on the upper temperature limit that Mars samples should be allowed to reach. We considered 11 scientific investigations where thermal excursions may have an adverse effect on the science outcome. Those are: (T-1) organic geochemistry, (T-2) stable isotope geochemistry, (T-3) prevention of mineral hydration/dehydration and phase transformation, (T-4) retention of water, (T-5) characterization of amorphous materials, (T-6) putative Martian organisms, (T-7) oxidation/reduction reactions, (T-8) (sup 4) He thermochronometry, (T-9) radiometric dating using fission, cosmic-ray or solar-flare tracks, (T-10) analyses of trapped gasses, and (T-11) magnetic studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.013 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".