When the Apollo 11 astronauts went to the moon in July 1969, NASA was concerned about their safety during the complex flight. The agency was also concerned about what space travelers would bring home.
For years before Apollo 11, officials feared the moon might harbor microbes. What if there were microbes on the moon? Did it survive the return trip and cause lunar fever on Earth?
To address this possibility, NASA planned to quarantine people, equipment, samples, and spacecraft that have come into contact with lunar material.
but, Papers published this month Dagomar DeGroot, an environmental historian at Georgetown University, has demonstrated in the science history journal Isis that these “planetary protection” efforts have been inadequate to a degree that has not been widely publicized. there is
Dr. DeGroot concludes in his study, “The isolation protocol appeared to be successful, but only because isolation was not necessary.”
DeGroot’s archival work also shows what NASA officials knew Lunar germs could pose an (albeit unlikely) existential threat, and if such threats do exist, quarantining them on the moon probably won’t keep the planet safe. deaf. Either way, they oversold their ability to neutralize that threat.
According to Dr. DeGroot’s paper, this space-age narrative tends to downplay low-probability and hard-to-manage existential risks in science projects in favor of focusing on smaller, less-probable problems. It is claimed to be an example. It also provides useful lessons as NASA and other space agencies prepare to collect samples from Mars and other worlds in the solar system for research on Earth.
In the 1960s, no one knew if the moon had life. But scientists were concerned enough that the National Academy of Sciences held a high-level conference in 1964 to discuss lunar and terrestrial contamination. “They agreed the risks were real and the consequences could be severe,” said Dr. DeGroot.
The scientists also agreed that quarantining anything returning from the moon would be both necessary and futile. Humanity will probably be unable to contain microscopic threats. The best Earthlings could do was to delay the microbial release until scientists developed countermeasures.
Despite these conclusions, NASA publicly claimed that it could save the planet. Spent tens of millions of dollars on the lunar reception lab, a sophisticated isolation facility. “But for all this beautiful complexity, there was just a basic, fundamental mistake,” Dr. DeGroot said.
NASA officials were well aware that laboratories were not perfect. Dr. DeGroot’s paper details many of the inspections and tests that revealed cracks, leaks, and water seepage in glove boxes and sterilization autoclaves.
In the weeks following the return of the Apollo 11 crew, 24 workers were exposed to lunar substances that were supposed to be protected by the facility’s infrastructure. they had to be quarantined. The containment failure was “mostly hidden from the public,” Dr. DeGroot wrote.
Laboratory emergency procedures (such as dealing with fires and medical emergencies) also include vandalism. isolation.
“It ended up being an example of the security theater of planetary protection,” said Jordan Bim, a science historian at the University of Chicago who was not involved in DeGroot’s work.
The return of the Apollo 11 astronauts to Earth also puts the planet at risk. For example, their vehicle was designed to vent during descent, and astronauts were to open hatches underwater.
In a 1965 memo, NASA officials said NASA had a moral obligation to prevent potential contamination, even if it meant changing mission weight, costs and schedules. However, when it returned to Earth four years later, the spacecraft vented anyway, and the interior of the capsule touched the Pacific Ocean.
“If there were lunar creatures that could reproduce in Earth’s oceans, we’d be thrilled,” said two-term NASA Planetary Protection Officer John Rummel.
the possibility that such organisms There was very little. However, if it did come true, the consequences would be enormous, and the Apollo program basically accepted them on behalf of the Earth.
Dr DeGroot said the trend to downplay existential risks and instead prioritize threats with high likelihood of low impact is evident in areas such as climate change, nuclear weapons and artificial intelligence.
With the Apollo program, officials didn’t simply downplay the risks. They weren’t transparent about it.
“Failure is part of learning,” Dr. Bim said of poor isolation.
As NASA prepares to bring back samples from Mars, which is far more likely to have life than the Moon in the 2030s, it will be important to understand what went wrong.
NASA has learned a lot about planetary protection since Apollo, said Nick Benardini, NASA’s current planetary protection officer. It has built in protection from the start, has held workshops to understand scientific gaps, and is already working on building a Mars sample laboratory.
The agency also intends to be candid with the public. “Risk communication and communication as a whole is very important,” said Dr. Benardini. Ultimately, “the planet’s biosphere is at stake,” he noted.
It’s hard to imagine the biosphere being endangered by alien species, but it’s possible. “The low-probability, high-consequence risk really matters,” said Dr. DeGroot. “Mitigating them is one of the most important things governments can do.”
