ReviewProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Utilizing Martian samples for future planetary exploration-Characterizing hazards and resources.
Review in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Martian samples, hazards, and biosecurity: Between science and bioethics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Reply to Siqueira-Batista and Gómez: Underscoring the importance of biosafety for the return of Martian samples.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- The scientific value of Mars Sample Return.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Perspectives on Mars Sample Return: A critical resource for planetary science and exploration.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the most surprising and important findings of the first human landings on the Moon was the discovery of a very fine layer of lunar dust covering the entire surface of Moon along with the negative impacts of this dust on the well-being and operational effectiveness of the astronauts, their equipment, and instrumentation. The United States is now planning for human missions to Mars, a planet where dust can also be expected to be ubiquitous for many or most landing sites. For these missions, the design and operations of key hardware systems must take this dust into account, especially when related to crew health and safety. Improved understanding of Martian dust characteristics can inform its potential to also perform transport of microorganisms, both those inadvertently brought to Mars by the astronauts, or, if Martian microorganisms exist, the potential for their inadvertent return to Earth with the astronauts. Careful planning and design are needed to assure that future missions do not violate the United Nations Outer Space Treaty (1967) signed by all spacefaring nations. In this paper, we review the impact of lunar dust on the Apollo missions and identify several questions about dust in the atmosphere of Mars that may be answered by the curated samples that would be returned by the planned Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign. These answers would not only provide an opportunity to better understand the history of Mars but could also reduce uncertainty in charting the future of humanity's exploration of the planet.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.