EURO-CARES: GETTING EUROPE READY FOR SAMPLE RETURN MISSIONS - AN EMPHASIS ON RESTRICTED MISSIONS.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".