Amber Walton
UNIV 112
Annotated Bibliography 3
4 November 2015
1. Research Question:
Should astronauts be allowed to go on a one-way mission to Mars?
2. MLA Source:
Conley, Catharine A., and Rummel, John D. "Planetary Protection for Humans in Space:
Mars and the Moon." Acta Astronautica 63.7 (2008): 1025-030. Science Direct. Web. 28
Oct. 2015.
3. Qualifications of Source:
At the time of this article’s publication, Catherine A. Conley and John D. Rummel
worked on the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters. Conley has a Ph.D
from Cornell University in plant biology and became NASA’s Planetary Protection
Officer in 2006. From 2006 to 2008, Rummel served as Senior Scientist for Astrobiology.
4. Main Claim of Source:
In the future of human planetary exploration, precautions must be made to protect the
astronauts, the Earth, and the planet being explored.
5. Sub-claims:
 Forward contamination is the contamination brought by spacecrafts and
astronauts. This contamination can disrupt the planet’s environment or any
potential alien ecosystem living there.

Backwards contamination is the short term or long term harm to astronauts and
the Earth that can be caused by possible planetary materials.
6. Evidence:
 Crewmembers of the Apollo program were observed as having been contaminated
despite precautions against it.

In the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, provisions were made specifically to avoid future
contamination to explored planets and the Earth.
7. Quotes:
“Living humans invariably carry associated microbial populations that are necessary for
our survival, and treating humans by the same methods used to reduce microbial
contamination on robotic systems would kill them.” (1026)
o This quote points out that human missions are quite different from robotic ones.
Manned missions need much more precautions for the sake of the crew, the planet
being explored, and the Earth, should the astronauts return.
“It is understood that exposure cannot be eliminated entirely, so careful planning will be
required to avoid the need for decisions about whether crew members are allowed to
return to Earth.” (1027)
o
Since it is inevitable for astronauts to bring back planetary material, it is
possible for that material to be harmful to the Earth as a whole. This can be used to
argue that it is safer to have them remain in space.
“After the mission, a quarantine capability and appropriate medical testing should be
provided for the crew. This would likely be implemented in conjunction with a health
monitoring and stabilization program that would be necessary to protect an immunecompromised crew from infection as they are integrated back into the general
population.” (1028)
o Having the mission be one-way could nullify this entire process.
“Exploration of special regions, including access to subsurface ice or water, shall be
restricted appropriately relative to the microbial and organic cleanliness of the humanassociated or robotic systems utilized. Calculations based on this approach will determine
the levels and kinds of contamination allowed for any particular human mission activity.”
(1028)
o This quote outlines the precautions taken to ensure the least amount of
contamination transfer between astronauts, their equipment, and the planet being
explored.
“Example events that could result in forward contamination of Mars include a spacecraft
crash, habitat or mobility systems breach, waste containment breach, poor sterilization of
systems accessing special regions.” (1029)
o These are examples of forward contamination I had not considered before. There
is more potential for forward contamination other than on-sight investigation. And
even with on-sight investigation, there is the possibility of human error in
sterilization.
8. Use of the Source:
This source outlines the possibility of harmful contamination by and on astronauts. The
possibility of bringing back harmful materials from Earth is a reason to consider having
one-way space flight missions instead of having astronauts return. Conversely, it could be
used as an argument for astronauts to not go at all.