COSPAR – Committee on Space Research

The Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) is working behind the scenes—and onstage—to safeguard scientific activities in and about space that benefit society today

Space is becoming increasingly present in our everyday lives. Scarcely a day goes by without news of extraordinary discoveries, like the first direct imaging of a black hole or a new exoplanet, solar flares and radio blackouts have entered our vocabulary as our understanding of space weather progresses, and we are dependent on Earth observation satellites for our weather forecasts, communications and for monitoring climate change.

Fortunately, the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) is working behind the scenes—and onstage—to safeguard scientific activities in and about space that benefit society today, and to seek applications for the exciting findings in all fields of space research for the 21st century and beyond.

What is COSPAR?

The Purpose of the Committee On Space Research (COSPAR), by its Charter from the International Science Council (ISC), is “to promote at an international level scientific research in space, with emphasis on the exchange of results, information and opinions, and to provide a forum, open to all scientists, for the discussion of problems that may affect scientific space research. The objectives of COSPAR are to be achieved through the organisation of scientific assemblies, publications, or any other means.”

Space Research

Mission

COSPAR’s mission is to assemble a worldwide community of scientists who are dedicated to international cooperation in space research. Through COSPAR these scientists will:

  • Share the results of their research, build bonds and encourage collaborations with scientists from around the world, thus also enhancing their careers.
  • Participate in influencing the conduct of space research, communicating to the public the exciting results, and extending the benefits of space research to society.
  • Engage with and benefit from interaction with science­-based global industry who are interested in applying scientific discovery to real­-world challenges and opportunities.
  • Assist engagement with the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs on projects such as planetary protection, space weather, and space debris.
  • Champion efforts enabling ongoing space programs to reach their full potential, in this way helping to spread the benefits of space research to all nations.
  • Support developed space programs through opportunities for direct interactions with space agency leaders, essential guidance on planetary protection requirements, and advice on future missions.

Members

COSPAR has two types of Members: International Scientific Unions and National Scientific Institutions which are engaged in space research. Currently, there are 13 National Scientific Unions with membership in COSPAR, and more than 40 National Scientific Institution members, ranging from those with fully­-fledged space activity to countries in the initial stages of playing a role in scientific space research.

Industry Relations

The industry is represented at COSPAR by the Committee on Industry Relations (CIR). This body informs and advises the COSPAR President on how best to integrate industry capabilities into COSPAR’s activities, and how COSPAR can best engage with industry, thus serving the interests of both the scientific and industrial communities. The Committee has also contributed to COSPAR’s policy on Inclusiveness, Diversity, Equity and Accessibility (IDEA), for example, and is helping to extend COSPAR’s reach around the world, and sponsor events at Scientific Assemblies, and provide input on the latest trends in the industry.

CIR Members are corporate officers drawn from COSPAR Industry Partners, Industry Supporters and other industries affiliated with COSPAR through the recommendation of the Committee.

Scientific Commissions and Panels

COSPAR’s scientific activity is organised around eight special interest groups, called Scientific Commissions, some of which may have related sub-­commissions or task groups, and 11 more specific Technical Panels. The Scientific Commissions cover the following fields:

Scientific Commission (SC) A: Space Studies of the Earth’s Surface, Meteorology, and Climate

The principal goal of this Commission is to promote and enhance effective international co­ordination, discussion, and cooperation in studies of the lower atmosphere­-ocean-­land system, where space observations can make unique and useful contributions. The immediate objective is to accelerate progress in our understanding of the various physical, geochemical and biological aspects in the atmosphere and oceans and on the Earth’s surface using space capabilities;

SC B: Space Studies of the Earth­Moon System, Planets, and Small Bodies of the Solar System

This group’s studies involve the planetary bodies of the solar system, especially evolutionary, dynamic and structural aspects, mainly referring to space studies, especially through the use of space vehicles. The aspects of planetary atmospheric studies to be emphasised are those which relate the atmosphere to the observed surface and the interior of the planet.

SC C: Space Studies of the Upper Atmospheres of the Earth and Planets Including Reference Atmosphere

The Ionosphere, Thermosphere, and Mesosphere is the region extending between roughly 90 and 800 km in altitude and continues to be an arena of active international space­-based and ground­-based research. This Commission aims to stimulate the planning of cooperative research programs; to investigate aspects of the properties and structure of the upper atmospheres of the Earth and planets; to plan symposia and topical meetings to present and discuss new results; and to develop comprehensive reference atmospheres and ionospheres for the Earth and planets.

Space Research
NASA

 

SC D: Space Plasmas in the Solar System, Including Planetary Magnetospheres

This Commission operates by setting up Sub­Commissions to deal with different aspects of space plasmas in the solar system. One of these Sub­Commissions is concerned with the heliosphere. Another deals with the regions of space in the planetary neighbourhoods where the magnetic field and/or ionosphere deflect(s) the solar wind flow. Another is concerned with active experiments and promotes research involving the active perturbation of laboratory plasmas as well as space plasmas to enhance our understanding of the natural space plasma environment and the interaction of space vehicles with this environment.

SC E: Research in Astrophysics from Space

This group deals with obtaining, sharing and analysing data taken from space­-borne platforms that are associated with the study of stars, galaxies and the universe. The data consist of high energy particles and radiation from the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Topics covered by Sub­Commissions include the study of the universe beyond the solar system, the study of the sun as a star, and exoplanets detection, characterisation and modelling.

SC F: Life Sciences as Related to Space

This Commission aims to cover, among other things, the effects of extraterrestrial environments on living systems, the origin and evolution of life, and the mechanisms and dynamics of ecosystems. The Sub­Commissions deal with space biology, astrobiology, including development of planetary protection plans in solar system exploration and sample return missions, natural and artificial ecosystems, and gravitational biology in space.

SC G: Materials Sciences in Space

This Commission involves scientific experiments in materials and fluid sciences performed in space that utilise mainly reduced gravity. The Commission reviews fundamental theoretical and experimental investigations which will yield significant new understanding in this field, it recommends promising
avenues for future research, and coordinates exchanges of information on these
scientific subjects.

SC H: Fundamental Physics in Space

This Commission focusses on discovering and exploring fundamental physical laws governing matter, space and time, including activities in gravitational and particle physics related to the testing of general relativity and alternative theories, and establishing organising principles in physics from which structure and complexity emerge.

The 11 technical Panels range from Satellite Dynamics, Planetary Protection, Space Weather, Potentially Environmentally Detrimental Activities in Space, Innovative Solutions, to Capacity Building, and Social Sciences and Humanities.

Planetary Protection

As humanity’s ventures into the “final frontier” accelerate and we land on nearby planets, the challenge is to make sure that we do not bring potentially dangerous material home to Earth (backward contamination) or carry anything from Earth that may jeopardise the scientific exploration of these worlds (forward contamination). This planetary protection against biological contamination is an international concern receiving renewed attention due to new findings and the emergence of commercial actors.

One of COSPAR’s core activities is to develop, maintain and promote a Policy on Planetary Protection in the form of implementation guidelines. This mission to guide compliance with the wording of the UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and other international agreements is the responsibility of the COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection, which was set up in 1998. The Panel consists in equal numbers, on the one hand, of appointed members representing the national or international authority responsible for compliance with the UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967, and on the other hand, of representatives of COSPAR Scientific Commissions B – Space Studies of the Earth­Moon System, Planets and Small Bodies of the Solar Systems, and F ­ Life Sciences as Related to Space.

More specifically, the COSPAR Panel on Planetary Protection is concerned with biological interchange in the conduct of solar system exploration and use, including:

(1) possible effects of contamination of planets other than the Earth, and of planetary satellites within the solar system by terrestrial organisms; and (2) contamination of the Earth by materials returned from outer space carrying potential extraterrestrial organisms.

The policies drawn up by the Panel are based on the most current, peer-­reviewed scientific knowledge, with the guiding principle that these policies should enable the exploration and use of the solar system, not prohibit it. The Panel makes every effort, through symposia, workshops, and topical meetings at COSPAR Assemblies, to provide an international forum for the exchange of information on the best practices for adhering to the COSPAR planetary protection requirements. Through COSPAR the Panel informs the international community, e.g., the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) of the United Nations, as well as various other bilateral and multilateral organization, of policy developments on planetary protection.

Space Debris

The COSPAR Panel on Potentially Environmentally Detrimental Activities in Space (PEDAS) is concerned with perturbations of the terrestrial and planetary environments resulting from space activities. Typical examples are: space debris in Earth orbit, release of chemicals in the Earth’s atmosphere by rocket launches, perturbation of the lunar environment by manned activities as well as possible perturbation of the Martian environment by space activities. The Panel acts on an ad hoc basis to evaluate questions of environmental impacts by space activities alone or together with other relevant organisations primarily to advise the international community, e.g., the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) of the United Nations.

Space Research

Capacity Building

COSPAR supports scientific space research in developing countries through a Capacity Building Program. This is in the form of a very practical two ­week workshop for young scientists from countries with no formal space

program, enabling them to learn relevant skills and practise on freely available data and analysis tools from various space projects in progress around the world. Participants are generally advanced astrophysics students, graduates, PhD students, or young researchers from the region, for whom this new area would open up new possibilities to work in research, and thus strengthen scientific activities in their countries.

An essential educational feature of these workshops is the combination of lectures and active data analysis exercises in mini­-projects that students carry out individually or in small groups. The results of these analyses are then presented by the students at the end of the course to their peers and teachers.

Task Group on Establishing a Constellation of Small Satellites

Set up in 2019, with the aim of assembling an international consortium to develop, launch and acquire date from a constellation of small satellites to study the near­Earth space environment, the Task Group’s initial focus has been to address key issues in the domain of space weather, radiation belt research and Earth observation. Participation is voluntary. As mentioned in the COSPAR Scientific Roadmap: Small Satellites for Space Science: “The role of COSPAR is one of an honest broker, coordinating not funding. The results of an international effort to build small satellite constellations would be valuable for all participants and would be more valuable than the individual parts.”

Task Group on Establishing an International Geospace Systems Program

It is now widely recognised that Earth’s magnetosphere is a “System of Systems”, with distinct processes in the various regions, coupled within and across through a cascade of scales all coupled together. Studying this System of Systems requires not just coordinated measurements of the pieces, but constellations of in situ spacecraft to study the mesoscales tying the scales together. The COSPAR Task Group on Establishing an International Geospace Systems Program will outline the scientific objectives for the System of Systems program, draft possible observation scenarios, and engage in discussions with researchers and space agency representatives about possible implementation strategies.

Space Research

Associates

Perhaps the most visible element of COSPAR is the 10,000+ scientists—the Associates—who participate in COSPAR activities. COSPAR provides many opportunities for them to pursue their research, exert influence and serve their communities, and they gather to share their experience and findings at the biennial Scientific Assemblies and the Symposia. Any scientist engaged in space research may become an Associate by participating in COSPAR activities, by contacting the Secretariat, or by holding inter-­organisational or governing functions within the COSPAR structure. Associates are expected to be affiliated to at least one COSPAR Scientific Commission.

Associates can take part in COSPAR’s scientific activities, particularly those of the Scientific Commissions. They are encouraged to attend the business meetings of Commissions and Technical Panels (generally held during the Scientific Assemblies) that interest them, and to participate in all discussions and votes of these business meetings.

COSPAR Scientific Assemblies

As the primary mission of COSPAR is to promote scientific research in space on an international level, the most important date in the space researcher’s calendar is the COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held every two years, on different continents, the Assembly provides a forum for the discussion of problems and the exchange of results, information and opinions that could affect scientific space research, without impediment from discrimination, geopolitical tensions or differences. These well­ established events bring together international experts at the forefront of the scientific discovery of space and are actively supported by all major space organisations through Round Tables and intensive discussions, shaping the ever­-evolving cutting edge in space science.

Highlights include a number of interdisciplinary lectures, presentation of latest research results, a strong industry presence, meetings for each of the Scientific Commissions and Panels to discuss future plans, and workshops for science teachers in the host country. The Assemblies adhere strictly to COSPAR’s Principles to create a safe, zero­-tolerance environment against any discrimination or harassment.

For more information, please visit: https://cosparhq.cnes.fr

More About Stakeholder

1 COMMENT

  1. Subject: Ethics on Cosmic Scale, Directed Panspermia, Outer Space Treaty, Technology Assessment, (and Fermi’s Paradox)

    Dear Open Access Government,

    I’m well aware there already is another major crisis currently. Nonetheless – due to my only recent realization on this message’s subject matter – I’d like to use this contact opportunity in an attempt to raise awareness of what I’m by science convinced of being the ethically most important subject for all of humanity’s future, due to its inherent immense risk for the future of sentient beings in general: Natural & especially Directed Panspermia. And I think this topic deserves far more serious care and attention, especially from the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA). Further insightful elaboration & scientific sources on the topic can be found here: https://longtermrisk.org/the-importance-of-wild-animal-suffering/ . In particular, the stark concerns which Brian Tomasik from the Effective Altruism group expressed (already) in 2014 should be taken to heart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yROxal8jQZM .

    Claim: The existence of past & recent projects alike the Venera 7, Pioneer 10 & Huygens spacecraft missions, 21 Mars lander or rover (including Curiosity & Perseverance rover) missions like InSight & Tianwen-1 as well as the Enceladus Explorer, Europa Lander, Gan De, Uranus Orbiter & Probe, Laplace-P, Enceladus Orbilander, and Neptune Odyssey missions and BioSentinel, Project Starlight, Breakthrough Starshot & Prof. Claudius Gros’ Genesis Project strongly indicate that there is no prohibition of Directed Panspermia currently in the United Nation’s Outer Space Treaty, which I think – at least until sufficient research and ethical evaluations are done, which admittedly may take decades or centuries even – is desperately needed & of imperative importance. However, a fast development of a global, international, emotionally intelligent consensus on voluntary self-restraint in regards to Directed Panspermia type projects, out of respect & care for how riskfully consequential such projects can be, may be even safer and hence preferable.

    To be questioned & investigated rationale for this claim: The topic is too vast & complex for me to concisely elaborate on all potentially relevant aspects (that I’m aware of) of it in here, so I’d like to summarize the main points of my & others’ concerns: If we take earth’s historical evolution of life as reference point for orientation & if there is plausible reason to assume that the majority of prehistoric life – by means of the widespread presence of pain-receptors & some forms of sentience – was not only, but also filled with suffering of therein involved many billions of species each consisting of many animals at any given time across a few billions of years, and to the extent to which this may all in all amount to unutterable extents of misery, then even if it is the case for earth that humanity is for the foreseeable future the only – and thereby critically important – species capable of finally turning this otherwise possibly almost endless misery into an overall pleasant existence e.g. using lab-grown meat and technological breakthroughs alike it, it still remains to be uncovered if even just locally this misery can in any form be compensated for, and there’s no guarantee. Now, if there is reason to believe that one can generalize or extrapolate from earth’s case to a sufficient variety of exoplanets (or celestial bodies in general), especially if it cannot even ever be ensured that colonies on exoplanets would treat the topic of Directed Panspermia carefully themselves or that their own presence as caretakers is ensured to hold sufficiently long compared to any introduced primitive life forms, this may constitute a strong argument against rushing developments towards such projects.

    As reminder: The climate, biological and nuclear and chemical threats, autonomous A.I., microplastic, and other topics – in our history, humanity had to learn after mistakes were already made, which often times turned into burdens that later generations had to carry. While for these cases the – still devastating – consequences may be more limited in scope, I think when it’s about the cosmos, it’d be wiser to approach this matter in a more reluctant, mindful manner, with long-term foresight, and without forgetting about ethics. Power & knowledge demands responsibility in its use, and it cannot be allowed for anyone to play god with exoplanets by kick-starting evolution of life there. And just because the universe contains so far uninhabited but habitable hells, this doesn’t mean we should even just infinitesimally risk populating them, especially in those instances in which they are so far away that it is utterly impossible to control what happens there. Contamination of celestial bodies with rapidly exponentially in numbers growing multi-cellular microbes would constitute a forever irreversible point of no return, especially for those several near-future missions aiming at those moons estimated to be most capable of allowing life on them & therefore carrying the highest contamination risks: Enceladus, Europa, Titan, Ganymede, Callisto, Triton. As reference, even the microbes on the ISS eventually started to for their metabolism consume the cleaning substances meant for sterilization.

    Also, on the topic of Fermi’s Paradox, it might be worthwhile considering the plausibility of the following hypothetical explanation:

    === Ethical explanation ===

    It is possible that ethical assessment of general forms of evolution of life in the universe constitutes the central issue which intelligent alien species’ macroscopic decision-making, such as for the topic of natural [[panspermia]], [[directed panspermia]], [[space colonization]], [[megastructures]], or [[self-replicating spacecraft]], revolves around. If the result of [[utility]] evaluations of enough and sufficiently in time extended initial or lasting portions of expected or prospective cases of evolution is among all other ethically relevant factors the dominant ethical concern of intelligent alien species, and if furthermore a large enough negative expected utility is assigned to sufficiently common forms of expected or prospective cases of evolution, then foregoing directed panspermia, space colonization, the construction of megastructures, sending out self-replicating spacecraft, but also active attempts to mitigate the consequences of interplanetary and interstellar forms of natural panspermia may follow. While in the case of [[space colonization]] it might ultimately stay too uncontrollable to – by technical or educational means – ensure [[settlers]] or emerging [[space colonies]] themselves consistently keep acting in accordance to the awareness of by [[colonizer]] considered major ethical dangers accompanying physical interstellar [[space exploration]], and for the case of interstellar self-replicating spacecraft, due to potential prebiotic substances in [[interstellar clouds]] and exoplanets’ atmospheres and soils, it may forever stay impossible to ensure their [[Sterilization (microbiology)|sterility]] to avoid contamination of celestial bodies which may kick-start uncontrollable evolution processes, reasons to forego the creation of a megastructure, even if such may be beneficial to an intelligent alien species and also to some other intelligent alien species imitators, may mainly have psychological origin. Since certain megastructures may be identifiable to be of unnatural, intelligent design requiring origin by foreign intelligent alien species, for as long as the by an intelligent alien species expected number of (especially less experienced or less far developed) from them foreign intelligent alien species capable of identifying their megastructure as such is large enough, the by them rather uncontrollable spectrum of interstellar space endeavor related influences this may have on those foreign intelligent alien species might constitute a too strong ethical deterrence from creating megastructures that are from outer space identifiable as such, until eventually a lasting state of cosmic privacy may be attained by natural or technological means.

    On the topic of space expansionism, I think there would be books to fill with considerations about it, and I have many (what I think would be) noteworthy informally documented points on the topic, but for now, some of the most important ones that I’d like to forward would be the following. I hope my slight intellectual dishonesty (used as maybe psychologically manipulative means to press on the matter) in using mathematical nomenclature that alludes to the following statements to appear as if they were in a mathematical, absolute sense proven when that isn’t quite true can be forgiven, but I genuinely am of the opinion that for the time being, it would be safer, better if humanity were to think of it as proven:

    1. Axiom: The ethical importance of an issue increases alongside the number of therein involved sentient lifeforms, the time duration during which they are affected by it, and the vastness of the affected space to the extent to which changes of it affect the lifeforms.

    2. Extremal case: By the above statement set abstract general standard, according to the current body of humanity’s knowledge, general forms of evolution of life (if on earth or on exoplanets) forever constitute the most ethically important issue to exist in the universe: With billions of species – each with numerous individual lifeforms – together with durations on the scale of billions of years, and spacial extension of at least a whole planet, it dwarfs any other conceivable ethical issue’s level of importance.

    3. Valuation Axiom for the extremal case: According to many scientific studies, such as by Richard Dawkins, Brian Tomasik, Alejandro Villamor Iglesias, Oscar Horta, pain and suffering dominates over joy for animal wildlife in general forms of Darwinian evolution of life, and therefore – when accumulated across all logically entangled parameters such as duration and count of involved individuals – instances of such forms of evolution of life has to be kept at a minimum in the universe, as there never was and never will be anything that could be more important, to change the conclusion of this Anti-Panspermia-implying directive.

    1. Special Cosmos Ethics Theorem: Exoplanet-Wildlife-Development-Control-dependent Anti-Panspermia Directive for Humanity
    The current state of the art of scientific evidence and ethics without exception imperatively demands that humanity does NOT engage in outer space activities of kinds that could even just infinitesimally likely risk introducing life to for any kind of lifeforms habitable worlds, for at least as long as humanity’s practical capability of controlling the up to astronomically vast consequences of interstellar space projects doesn’t sufficiently improve in a for interstellar space endeavors safety guaranteeing, critical manner.

    Proof (by contradiction):
    This conclusion deductively follows from the concerningly plausible, by many scientific studies supported, Axiom that general animal wildlife – not only as it has been throughout evolution on earth, but on a more general level that would apply to exoplanet life of our biological kind, too – for the vast majority of it is dominated by pain and suffering rather than joy (reference: Center for Long-Term Risk).

    Assume the existence of a counter-example:
    It could be argued that IF overall worthwhile to exist life on a larger scale were to rely on previous evolutionary animal wildlife’s existence and that the former were to safely come from the latter, that THEN it could possibly be better for evolutionary animal wildlife to come into existence than not.

    Proof (by Ethical Dominance Principle) of the impossibility of the existence of counter-examples:
    However, given that aforementioned, dominant wildlife animal pain and suffering in its amount and hence importance and priority for macro-scale decision-making increases by the duration throughout which such a miserable, in itself unwantable state persists, and that in the case of general forms of evolution of life, we have to expect that it can last for extraordinary long times of what essentially is involuntary, if avoidable unnecessary torture by the banal means of nature’s own ruthlessness, namely that it can last for billions of years, and furthermore that these time-spans are unavoidable if it shall lead to intelligent species, we can therefore conclude that the severity of this issue dominates every other to this date conceivable, plausible ethical issue, since all other ethical issues absolutely pale in comparison to the magnitudes of magnitudes by which this central ethical issue overshadows them all, in such a uniquely outstanding way that risking billion years full of suffering for thousands of individuals of at any time billions of wildlife exoplanet animals each can for nothing in the world be a by any standards reasonable sacrifice to make.

    Therefore, by humanity’s current full body of knowledge, what happens to wildlife animals part of any actual, prospective, or potentially risked to exist instances of evolution of life constitutes the single most dominating, for ethical macro-scale decision-making behavior sole determinant factor of consideration.

    Corollary 1.1: Time-Global Anti-Panspermia Directive for Humanity
    If humanity is never able or can never be able to safely control exoplanet wildlife’s entire development for the purpose of guaranteeing its & all by its own activities potentially emerging foreign exoplanet wildlife’s pain-less flourishing, for any exoplanet wildlife risked to emerge or exist as consequence of humanity’s outer space activities, then it follows that humanity shall NEVER engage in activities that risk causing such.

    2. Central Cosmos Ethics Theorem: General Anti-Panspermia Prime Directive
    If the result of wildlife well-being evaluations of enough and sufficiently in time extended initial or lasting portions of expected or prospective cases of evolution of life is generally among all other ethically relevant factors the dominant ethical concern, and if furthermore a large enough unavoidable negative expected wildlife well-being has to be assumed of sufficiently common forms of expected or prospective cases of evolution of life, then imperative necessity of complete prevention of all preventable forms of contamination or panspermia follows.

    Corollary 2.1: Anti-Panspermia Directive on local Star System Contamination
    Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking contamination of a celestial body within the local star system with (not necessarily extremophile) micro-organisms is to be prevented. This includes causing the emergence and spread of micro-organisms on a celestial body of the local star system, potentially followed by eventual interstellar transportation of by it emerging (extremophile) micro-organisms on the celestial body via natural panspermia, such as meteorites entering such celestial body’s atmosphere to pick the organisms up and continue towards interstellar space via sling-shot.

    Corollary 2.2: Anti-Panspermia Directive on Space-Faring
    Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking space-faring activities are to be prevented. This includes not only space probes, satellites, solar sails, and light sails but also von-Neumann-Probes (self-replicating Spacecraft), (replicating) seeder ships, and space-faring of individuals where the Anti-Panspermia abiding behavior of them and later generations after them cannot be ensured.

    Corollary 2.3: Natural Anti-Panspermia Directive
    Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking, preventable natural litho-panspermia processes are to be prevented. This includes (extremophile) micro-organism transportation methods via space dust, meteorites, asteroids, comets, planetoids, planets, and debris ejected into space upon celestial body collisions.

    Corollary 2.4: Anti-Panspermia Directive on Mega-Structures
    Any construction of a mega-structure that at least infinitesimally – due to literally far reaching psychological influences – risks contamination or panspermia being risked or pursued via outer space activities from any other – for the detection of such mega-structure in astronomy engaging – alien civilization is to be prevented.

    Corollary 2.5: Anti-Panspermia Directive on Super Volcano Eruptions
    Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking, preventable natural super volcano eruptions on a by life inhabited planet that can reach beyond its exosphere are to be prevented, or altered so they safely don’t risk contamination or panspermia anymore.

    Corollary 2.6: Anti-Panspermia Directive on Space-Flight Infrastructure
    Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking, preventable space-flight infrastructure construction or use is to be prevented, or at least sufficiently restricted, controlled, and regulated.

    Corollary 2.7: Anti-Panspermia Directive on Science, Technology, and Knowledge
    Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking, preventable scientific or technological activities or knowledge is to be prevented or irreversibly deleted, or at least sufficiently restricted, controlled, and regulated. This includes solar sail and light sail related technology, science, and knowledge. This may at first glance seem to be excessive, but for comparison, by magnitudes far less in their potential damage severe dual-use technologies are classified & are subject of strict continual control, too.

    Corollary 2.8: Anti-Panspermia Directive on (Mass) Psychology
    Any at least infinitesimally contamination or panspermia risking, preventable psychological influence is to be prevented, or at least sufficiently restricted. This includes the propagation of news of any astronomical discovery of a bio-signature or techno-signature or celestial body of special interest such as habitable exoplanets.

    Remark: The importance of prevention measures for types of panspermia (according to the above general line of reasoning) depends on the level of (lack of) controllability of the potential long-term consequences (in terms of kick-
    started evolution of life) that may emerge as result from such, and for the purpose of differentiating in a reasonable manner that has this control-related parameter in mind, it makes sense to differentiate between interstellar and interplanetary panspermia, as at least it seems more plausible that interplanetary panspermia – if it were to happen – would be easier and more timely to control (although not necessarily sufficiently controllable).

    This would be all. Thank you for reading, and especially in case of interest & understanding.

    With highest regards,

    M.Sc. (TUM) Bernd Clemens Huber

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here