The Scientific Importance of Returning Airfall Dust as a Part of Mars Sample Return (MSR).

Dust transported in the martian atmosphere is of intrinsic scientific interest and has relevance for the planning of human missions in the future. The MSR Campaign, as currently designed, presents an important opportunity to return serendipitous, airfall dust. The tubes containing samples collected by the Perseverance rover would be placed in cache depots on the martian surface perhaps as early as 2023-24 for recovery by a subsequent mission no earlier than 2028-29, and possibly as late as 2030-31. Thus, the sample tube surfaces could passively collect dust for multiple years. This dust is deemed to be exceptionally valuable as it would inform our knowledge and understanding of Mars' global mineralogy, surface processes, surface-atmosphere interactions, and atmospheric circulation. Preliminary calculations suggest that the total mass of such dust on a full set of tubes could be as much as 100 mg and, therefore, sufficient for many types of laboratory analyses. Two planning steps would optimize our ability to take advantage of this opportunity: (1) the dust-covered sample tubes should be loaded into the Orbiting Sample container (OS) with minimal cleaning and (2) the capability to recover this dust early in the workflow within an MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) would need to be established. A further opportunity to advance dust/atmospheric science using MSR, depending upon the design of the MSR Campaign elements, may lie with direct sampling and the return of airborne dust. Summary of Findings FINDING D-1: An accumulation of airfall dust would be an unavoidable consequence of leaving M2020 sample tubes cached and exposed on the surface of Mars. Detailed laboratory analyses of this material would yield new knowledge concerning surface-atmosphere interactions that operate on a global scale, as well as provide input to planning for the future robotic and human exploration of Mars. FINDING D-2: The detailed information that is possible from analysis of airfall dust can only be obtained by investigation in Earth laboratories, and thus this is an important corollary aspect of MSR. The same information cannot be obtained from orbit, from in situ analyses, or from analyses of samples drilled from single locations. FINDING D-3: Given that at least some martian dust would be on the exterior surfaces of any sample tubes returned to Earth, the capability to receive and curate dust in an MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) is essential. SUMMARY STATEMENT: The fact that any sample tubes cached on the martian surface would accumulate some quantity of martian airfall dust presents a low-cost scientifically valuable opportunity. Some of this dust would inadvertently be knocked off as part of tube manipulation operations, but any dust possible should be loaded into the OS along with the sample tubes. This dust should be captured in an SRF and made available for detailed scientific analysis.

Rationale and Proposed Design for a Mars Sample Return (MSR) Science Program.

The Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign represents one of the most ambitious scientific endeavors ever undertaken. Analyses of the martian samples would offer unique science benefits that cannot be attained through orbital or landed missions that rely only on remote sensing and in situ measurements, respectively. As currently designed, the MSR Campaign comprises a number of scientific, technical, and programmatic bodies and relationships, captured in a series of existing and anticipated documents. Ensuring that all required scientific activities are properly designed, managed, and executed would require significant planning and coordination. Because there are multiple scientific elements that would need to be executed to achieve MSR Campaign success, it is critical to ensure that the appropriate management, oversight, planning, and resources are made available to accomplish them. This could be achieved via a formal MSR Science Management Plan (SMP). A subset of the MSR Science Planning Group 2 (MSPG2)-termed the SMP Focus Group-was tasked to develop inputs for an MSR Campaign SMP. The scope is intended to cover the interface to the Mars 2020 mission, science elements in the MSR flight program, ground-based science infrastructure, MSR science opportunities, and the MSR sample and science data management. In this report, a comprehensive MSR Science Program is proposed that comprises specific science bodies and/or activities that could be implemented to address the science functionalities throughout the MSR Campaign. The proposed structure was designed by taking into consideration previous management review processes, a set of guiding principles, and key lessons learned from previous robotic exploration and sample return missions. Executive Summary The Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign represents one of the most ambitious scientific endeavors ever undertaken. Analyses of the martian samples would offer unique science benefits that cannot be attained through orbital or landed missions that rely only on remote sensing and in situ measurements, respectively. Ensuring that all required scientific activities are properly designed, managed, and executed would require significant planning and coordination. As currently designed, the MSR Campaign comprises a number of scientific, technical, and programmatic bodies and relationships, captured in a series of existing and anticipated documents. Because there are so many scientific elements that would need to be executed to achieve MSR Campaign success, it is critical to ensure that the appropriate management, oversight, planning, and resources are made available to accomplish them. To date, however, no dedicated budget lines within NASA and ESA have been made available for these purposes, and no formal MSR Science Management Plan (SMP) has yet been established. It is thus evident that: A joint ESA/NASA MSR Science Program, along with the necessary funding and resources, will be required to accomplish the end-to-end scientific objectives of MSR. To aid in planning, the MSR Science Program requires an overarching SMP to fully describe how it could be implemented to meet the MSR scientific objectives and maximize the overall science return. A subset of the MSR Science Planning Group 2 (MSPG2)-termed the SMP Focus Group-was tasked to develop inputs for the MSR Campaign SMP. The scope covers the interface to the Mars 2020 mission, science elements in the MSR flight program, ground-based science infrastructure, MSR science opportunities, and the MSR sample and science data management. Some of the required bodies and activities already exist; the remainder require definition. In this report, a comprehensive MSR Science Program is proposed, comprising specific science bodies and/or activities that could be implemented to address the science functionalities throughout the MSR Campaign. The proposed structure was designed by taking into consideration previous management review processes, a set of guiding principles, and key lessons learned from previous robotic exploration and sample return missions. While we acknowledge that the proposal is non-unique, that is, other implementations could meet the overall needs of the MSR Campaign, we have striven to optimize efficiencies and eliminate unnecessary overlap wherever possible to reduce the potential cost and complexity of the MSR Science Program. Many elements of the proposed Science Program are interdependent, as the decision to trigger certain bodies or activities depend on reaching key milestones throughout the MSR Campaign. Although the timing of certain elements may be flexible depending on the anticipated date of samples arriving on Earth, it is crucial that others are implemented as soon as is feasible. As a first step, formalizing the Science Program's management structure as soon as possible would ensure that impending time-sensitive trades are conducted, and the resulting decisions are made with adequate scientific input. Summary of Findings FINDING SMP-1: A joint science management structure and documented agreements among the MSR Partners are required to coordinate the MSR Science Program elements that are not currently defined in existing structures or documents. FINDING SMP-2: A long-term ESA/NASA MSR Science Program, along with the necessary funding and human resources, will be required to accomplish the end-to-end scientific objectives of MSR. FINDING SMP-3: The MSR Science Management Plan should be linked to, but not encompass, other required functionalities within the MSR Campaign. Input will be needed to produce formal plans for (at a minimum) curation, planetary protection, data management, and public engagement. FINDING SMP-4: The guiding principles proposed in the MSR Science Planning Group (MSPG) Framework document (2019c) remain appropriate and relevant and should be utilized in drafting the MSR Science Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Science Management Plan. FINDING SMP-5 (a): MSR scientific return would be maximized if participation in the MSR Science Program is not limited to scientists sponsored by existing MSR Partners; rather, opportunities should be provided to scientists from around the world. (b) All programmatic decision-making power (e.g., selection of competitive proposals) would still rest with the Partners. FINDING SMP-6: At the implementation level, the MSR Science Program should, wherever possible, leverage structures, programs, and lessons-learned from previous mission organization to benefit from their experiences to engender familiarity among both decision-makers and the science community. FINDING SMP-7: The MSR Science Program requires the establishment of scientific bodies to meet management, science operations, and public participation needs. These bodies require dedicated funding, addressing scientific functionalities that span the entirety of the MSR Campaign. FINDING SMP-8: Some elements of the MSR Science Program cannot be delayed in the event of an MSR Program schedule delay, as they are linked to key decisions or operations of the Mars 2020 mission.

Science and Curation Considerations for the Design of a Mars Sample Return (MSR) Sample Receiving Facility (SRF).

The most important single element of the "ground system" portion of a Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign is a facility referred to as the Sample Receiving Facility (SRF), which would need to be designed and equipped to receive the returned spacecraft, extract and open the sealed sample container, extract the samples from the sample tubes, and implement a set of evaluations and analyses of the samples. One of the main findings of the first MSR Sample Planning Group (MSPG, 2019a) states that "The scientific community, for reasons of scientific quality, cost, and timeliness, strongly prefers that as many sample-related investigations as possible be performed in PI-led laboratories outside containment." There are many scientific and technical reasons for this preference, including the ability to utilize advanced and customized instrumentation that may be difficult to reproduce inside in a biocontained facility, and the ability to allow multiple science investigators in different labs to perform similar or complementary analyses to confirm the reproducibility and accuracy of results. It is also reasonable to assume that there will be a desire for the SRF to be as efficient and economical as possible, while still enabling the objectives of MSR to be achieved. For these reasons, MSPG concluded, and MSPG2 agrees, that the SRF should be designed to accommodate only those analytical activities that could not reasonably be done in outside laboratories because they are time- or sterilization-sensitive, are necessary for the Sample Safety Assessment Protocol (SSAP), or are necessary parts of the initial sample characterization process that would allow subsamples to be effectively allocated for investigation. All of this must be accommodated in an SRF, while preserving the scientific value of the samples through maintenance of strict environmental and contamination control standards. Executive Summary The most important single element of the "ground system" portion of a Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign is a facility referred to as the Sample Receiving Facility (SRF), which would need to be designed and equipped to enable receipt of the returned spacecraft, extraction and opening of the sealed sample container, extraction of the samples from the sample tubes, and a set of evaluations and analyses of the samples-all under strict protocols of biocontainment and contamination control. Some of the important constraints in the areas of cost and required performance have not yet been set by the necessary governmental sponsors, but it is reasonable to assume there will be a desire for the SRF to be as efficient and economical as is possible, while still enabling the objectives of MSR science to be achieved. Additionally, one of the main findings of MSR Sample Planning Group (MSPG, 2019a) states "The scientific community, for reasons of scientific quality, cost, and timeliness, strongly prefers that as many sample-related investigations as possible be performed in PI-led laboratories outside containment." There are many scientific and technical reasons for this preference, including the ability to utilize advanced and customized instrumentation that may be difficult to reproduce inside a biocontained facility. Another benefit is the ability to enable similar or complementary analyses by multiple science investigators in different laboratories, which would confirm the reproducibility and accuracy of results. For these reasons, the MSPG concluded-and the MSR Science Planning Group Phase 2 (MSPG2) agrees-that the SRF should be designed to accommodate only those analytical activities inside biocontainment that could not reasonably be done in outside laboratories because such activities are time-sensitive, sterilization-sensitive, required by the Sample Safety Assessment Protocol (SSAP), or are necessary parts of the initial sample characterization process that would allow subsamples to be effectively allocated for investigation. All activities within the SRF must be done while preserving the scientific value of the samples through maintenance of strict environmental and contamination control standards. The SRF would need to provide a unique environment that consists of both Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) equivalent containment and a very high level of contamination control. The SRF would also need to accommodate the following activities: (1)Receipt of the returned spacecraft, presumably in a sealed shipping container (2)De-integration (i.e., disassembly) and assessment of the returned system, beginning with the spacecraft exterior and ending with accessing and isolating all Mars material (gas, dust, regolith, and rock) (3)Initial sample characterization, leading to development of a sample catalog sufficient to support sample allocation (see Tait et al., 2022) (4)Science investigations necessary to complete the SSAP (see Kminek et al., 2021) (5)Certain science investigations that are both time- and sterilization-sensitive (see Tosca et al., 2022; Velbel et al., 2022) (6)A managed transition to post-SRF activities that would include analysis of samples (either sterilized or not) outside biocontainment and the transfer of some or all samples to one or more uncontained curation facilities The MSPG2 has produced a compilation of potential design requirements for the SRF, based on the list of activities noted above, that can be used in cost and schedule planning. The text of this report is meant to serve as an overview and explanation of these proposed SRF Design Requirements that have been compiled by the MSPG2 SRF Requirements Focus Group (Supplement 1). Summary of Findings FINDING SRF-1: The quality of the science that can be achieved with the MSR samples will be negatively impacted if they are not protected from contamination and inappropriate environmental conditions. A significant amount of SRF infrastructure would therefore be necessary to maintain and monitor appropriate levels of cleanliness, contamination control, and environmental conditions. FINDING SRF-2: Although most MSR sample investigations would take place outside of the SRF, the SRF needs to include significant laboratory capabilities with advanced instruments and associated sample preparation systems to enable the MSR science objectives to be successfully achieved. FINDING SRF-3: Preliminary studies of different operational scenarios should be started as soon as possible to enable analysis of the trade-offs between the cost and size of the SRF and the amount of time needed to prepare the samples for allocation and analysis. FINDING SRF-4: The ability to add additional analytical capabilities within biocontainment should be preserved to address the contingency scenario in which unsterilized material is not cleared to be analyzed outside of biocontainment. If potential evidence of martian life were to be detected in the samples, for example, it would be a high priority to conduct further investigations related to any putative lifeforms, as well as to enable other sterilization-sensitive science investigations to be conducted in biocontainment.

Final Report of the Mars Sample Return Science Planning Group 2 (MSPG2).

The Mars Sample Return (MSR) Campaign must meet a series of scientific and technical achievements to be successful. While the respective engineering responsibilities to retrieve the samples have been formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding between ESA and NASA, the roles and responsibilities of the scientific elements have yet to be fully defined. In April 2020, ESA and NASA jointly chartered the MSR Science Planning Group 2 (MSPG2) to build upon previous planning efforts in defining 1) an end-to-end MSR Science Program and 2) needed functionalities and design requirements for an MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF). The challenges for the first samples brought from another planet include not only maintaining and providing samples in pristine condition for study, but also maintaining biological containment until the samples meet sample safety criteria for distribution outside of biocontainment. The MSPG2 produced six reports outlining 66 findings. Abbreviated versions of the five additional high-level MSPG2 summary findings are: Summary-1. A long-term NASA/ESA MSR Science Program, along with the necessary funding and human resources, will be required to accomplish the end-to-end scientific objectives of MSR. Summary-2. MSR curation would need to be done concurrently with Biosafety Level-4 containment. This would lead to complex first-of-a-kind curation implementations and require further technology development. Summary-3. Most aspects of MSR sample science could, and should, be performed on samples deemed safe in laboratories outside of the SRF. However, other aspects of MSR sample science are both time-sensitive and sterilization-sensitive and would need to be carried out in the SRF. Summary-4. To meet the unique science, curation, and planetary protection needs of MSR, substantial analytical and sample management capabilities would be required in an SRF. Summary-5. Because of the long lead-time for SRF design, construction, and certification, it is important that preparations begin immediately, even if there is delay in the return of samples.

Time-Sensitive Aspects of Mars Sample Return (MSR) Science.

Samples returned from Mars would be placed under quarantine at a Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) until they are considered safe to release to other laboratories for further study. The process of determining whether samples are safe for release, which may involve detailed analysis and/or sterilization, is expected to take several months. However, the process of breaking the sample tube seal and extracting the headspace gas will perturb local equilibrium conditions between gas and rock and set in motion irreversible processes that proceed as a function of time. Unless these time-sensitive processes are understood, planned for, and/or monitored during the quarantine period, scientific information expected from further analysis may be lost forever. At least four processes underpin the time-sensitivity of Mars returned sample science: (1) degradation of organic material of potential biological origin, (2) modification of sample headspace gas composition, (3) mineral-volatile exchange, and (4) oxidation/reduction of redox-sensitive materials. Available constraints on the timescales associated with these processes supports the conclusion that an SRF must have the capability to characterize attributes such as sample tube headspace gas composition, organic material of potential biological origin, as well as volatiles and their solid-phase hosts. Because most time-sensitive investigations are also sensitive to sterilization, these must be completed inside the SRF and on timescales of several months or less. To that end, we detail recommendations for how sample preparation and analysis could complete these investigations as efficiently as possible within an SRF. Finally, because constraints on characteristic timescales that define time-sensitivity for some processes are uncertain, future work should focus on: (1) quantifying the timescales of volatile exchange for core material physically and mineralogically similar to samples expected to be returned from Mars, and (2) identifying and developing stabilization or temporary storage strategies that mitigate volatile exchange until analysis can be completed. Executive Summary Any samples returned from Mars would be placed under quarantine at a Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) until it can be determined that they are safe to release to other laboratories for further study. The process of determining whether samples are safe for release, which may involve detailed analysis and/or sterilization, is expected to take several months. However, the process of breaking the sample tube seal and extracting the headspace gas would perturb local equilibrium conditions between gas and rock and set in motion irreversible processes that proceed as a function of time. Unless these processes are understood, planned for, and/or monitored during the quarantine period, scientific information expected from further analysis may be lost forever. Specialist members of the Mars Sample Return Planning Group Phase 2 (MSPG-2), referred to here as the Time-Sensitive Focus Group, have identified four processes that underpin the time-sensitivity of Mars returned sample science: (1) degradation of organic material of potential biological origin, (2) modification of sample headspace gas composition, (3) mineral-volatile exchange, and (4) oxidation/reduction of redox-sensitive materials (Figure 2). Consideration of the timescales and the degree to which these processes jeopardize scientific investigations of returned samples supports the conclusion that an SRF must have the capability to characterize: (1) sample tube headspace gas composition, (2) organic material of potential biological origin, (3) volatiles bound to or within minerals, and (4) minerals or other solids that host volatiles (Table 4). Most of the investigations classified as time-sensitive in this report are also sensitive to sterilization by either heat treatment and/or gamma irradiation (Velbel et al., 2022). Therefore, these investigations must be completed inside biocontainment and on timescales that minimize the irrecoverable loss of scientific information (i.e., several months or less; Section 5). To that end, the Time-Sensitive Focus Group has outlined a number of specific recommendations for sample preparation and instrumentation in order to complete these investigations as efficiently as possible within an SRF (Table 5). Constraints on the characteristic timescales that define time-sensitivity for different processes can range from relatively coarse to uncertain (Section 4). Thus, future work should focus on: (1) quantifying the timescales of volatile exchange for variably lithified core material physically and mineralogically similar to samples expected to be returned from Mars, and (2) identifying and developing stabilization strategies or temporary storage strategies that mitigate volatile exchange until analysis can be completed. List of Findings FINDING T-1: Aqueous phases, and oxidants liberated by exposure of the sample to aqueous phases, mediate and accelerate the degradation of critically important but sensitive organic compounds such as DNA. FINDING T-2: Warming samples increases reaction rates and destroys compounds making biological studies much more time-sensitive. MAJOR FINDING T-3: Given the potential for rapid degradation of biomolecules, (especially in the presence of aqueous phases and/or reactive O-containing compounds) Sample Safety Assessment Protocol (SSAP) and parallel biological analysis are time sensitive and must be carried out as soon as possible. FINDING T-4: If molecules or whole cells from either extant or extinct organisms have persisted under present-day martian conditions in the samples, then it follows that preserving sample aliquots under those same conditions (i.e., 6 mbar total pressure in a dominantly CO2 atmosphere and at an average temperature of -80°C) in a small isolation chamber is likely to allow for their continued persistence. FINDING T-5: Volatile compounds (e.g., HCN and formaldehyde) have been lost from Solar System materials stored under standard curation conditions. FINDING T-6: Reactive O-containing species have been identified in situ at the martian surface and so may be present in rock or regolith samples returned from Mars. These species rapidly degrade organic molecules and react more rapidly as temperature and humidity increase. FINDING T-7: Because the sample tubes would not be closed with perfect seals and because, after arrival on Earth, there will be a large pressure gradient across that seal such that the probability of contamination of the tube interiors by terrestrial gases increases with time, the as-received sample tubes are considered a poor choice for long-term gas sample storage. This is an important element of time sensitivity. MAJOR FINDING T-8: To determine how volatiles may have been exchanged with headspace gas during transit to Earth, the composition of martian atmosphere (in a separately sealed reservoir and/or extracted from the witness tubes), sample headspace gas composition, temperature/time history of the samples, and mineral composition (including mineral-bound volatiles) must all be quantified. When the sample tube seal is breached, mineral-bound volatile loss to the curation atmosphere jeopardizes robust determination of volatile exchange history between mineral and headspace. FINDING T-9: Previous experiments with mineral powders show that sulfate minerals are susceptible to H2O loss over timescales of hours to days. In addition to volatile loss, these processes are accompanied by mineralogical transformation. Thus, investigations targeting these minerals should be considered time-sensitive. FINDING T-10: Sulfate minerals may be stabilized by storage under fixed relative-humidity conditions, but only if the identity of the sulfate phase(s) is known a priori. In addition, other methods such as freezing may also stabilize these minerals against volatile loss. FINDING T-11: Hydrous perchlorate salts are likely to undergo phase transitions and volatile exchange with ambient surroundings in hours to days under temperature and relative humidity ranges typical of laboratory environments. However, the exact timescale over which these processes occur is likely a function of grain size, lithification, and/or cementation. FINDING T-12: Nanocrystalline or X-ray amorphous materials are typically stabilized by high proportions of surface adsorbed H2O. Because this surface adsorbed H2O is weakly bound compared to bulk materials, nanocrystalline materials are likely to undergo irreversible ripening reactions in response to volatile loss, which in turn results in decreases in specific surface area and increases in crystallinity. These reactions are expected to occur over the timescale of weeks to months under curation conditions. Therefore, the crystallinity and specific surface area of nanocrystalline materials should be characterized and monitored within a few months of opening the sample tubes. These are considered time-sensitive measurements that must be made as soon as possible. FINDING T-13: Volcanic and impact glasses, as well as opal-CT, are metastable in air and susceptible to alteration and volatile exchange with other solid phases and ambient headspace. However, available constraints indicate that these reactions are expected to proceed slowly under typical laboratory conditions (i.e., several years) and so analyses targeting these materials are not considered time sensitive. FINDING T-14: Surface adsorbed and interlayer-bound H2O in clay minerals is susceptible to exchange with ambient surroundings at timescales of hours to days, although the timescale may be modified depending on the degree of lithification or cementation. Even though structural properties of clay minerals remain unaffected during this process (with the exception of the interlayer spacing), investigations targeting H2O or other volatiles bound on or within clayminerals should be considered time sensitive upon opening the sample tube. FINDING T-15: Hydrated Mg-carbonates are susceptible to volatile loss and recrystallization and transformation over timespans of months or longer, though this timescale may be modified by the degree of lithification and cementation. Investigations targeting hydrated carbonate minerals (either the volatiles they host or their bulk mineralogical properties) should be considered time sensitive upon opening the sample tube. MAJOR FINDING T-16: Current understanding of mineral-volatile exchange rates and processes is largely derived from monomineralic experiments and systems with high surface area; lithified sedimentary rocks (accounting for some, but not all, of the samples in the cache) will behave differently in this regard and are likely to be associated with longer time constants controlled in part by grain boundary diffusion. Although insufficient information is available to quantify this at the present time, the timescale of mineral-volatile exchange in lithified samples is likely to overlap with the sample processing and curation workflow (i.e., 1-10 months; Table 4). This underscores the need to prioritize measurements targeting mineral-hosted volatiles within biocontainment. FINDING T-17: The liberation of reactive O-species through sample treatment or processing involving H2O (e.g., rinsing, solvent extraction, particle size separation in aqueous solution, or other chemical extraction or preparation protocols) is likely to result in oxidation of some component of redox-sensitive materials in a matter of hours. The presence of reactive O-species should be examined before sample processing steps that seek to preserve or target redox-sensitive minerals. Electron paramagnetic resonance spectroscopy (EPR) is one example of an effective analytical method capable of detecting and characterizing the presence of reactive O-species. FINDING T-18: Environments that maintain anoxia under inert gas containing <<1 ppm O2 are likely to stabilize redox-sensitive minerals over timescales of several years. MAJOR FINDING T-19: MSR investigations targeting organic macromolecular or cellular material, mineral-bound volatile compounds, redox sensitive minerals, and/or hydrous carbonate minerals can become compromised at the timescale of weeks (after opening the sample tube), and scientific information may be completely lost within a time timescale of a few months. Because current considerations indicate that completion of SSAP, sample sterilization, and distribution to investigator laboratories cannot be completed in this time, these investigations must be completed within the Sample Receiving Facility as soon as possible.

Preliminary Planning for Mars Sample Return (MSR) Curation Activities in a Sample Receiving Facility (SRF).

The Mars Sample Return Planning Group 2 (MSPG2) was tasked with identifying the steps that encompass all the curation activities that would happen within the MSR Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) and any anticipated curation-related requirements. An area of specific interest is the necessary analytical instrumentation. The SRF would be a Biosafety Level-4 facility where the returned MSR flight hardware would be opened, the sample tubes accessed, and the martian sample material extracted from the tubes. Characterization of the essential attributes of each sample would be required to provide enough information to prepare a sample catalog used in guiding the preparation of sample-related proposals by the world's research community and informing decisions by the sample allocation committee. The sample catalog would be populated with data and information generated during all phases of activity, including data derived concurrent with Mars 2020 sample-collecting rover activity, sample transport to Earth, and initial sample characterization within the SRF. We conclude that initial sample characterization can best be planned as a set of three sequential phases, which we have called Pre-Basic Characterization (Pre-BC), Basic Characterization (BC), and Preliminary Examination (PE), each of which requires a certain amount of instrumentation. Data on specific samples and subsamples obtained during sample safety assessments and time-sensitive scientific investigations would also be added to the catalog. There are several areas where future work would be beneficial to prepare for the receipt of samples, which would include the design of a sample tube isolation chamber and a strategy for opening the sample tubes and removing dust from the tube exteriors. Executive Summary All material collected from Mars (gases, dust, rock, regolith) would need to be carefully handled, stored, and analyzed following Earth return to minimize the alteration or contamination that could occur on Earth and maximize the scientific information that can be attained from the samples now and into the future. A Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) is where the Earth Entry System (EES) would be opened and the sample tubes opened and processed after they land on Earth. Samples should be accessible for research in biocontainment for time-sensitive studies and eventually, when deemed safe for release after sterilization or biohazard assessment, should be transferred out of biocontainment for allocation to scientific investigators in outside laboratories. There are two main mechanisms for allocation of samples outside the SRF: 1) Wait until the implementation of the Sample Safety Assessment Protocol (Planetary Protection) results concludes that the samples are non-hazardous, 2) Render splits of the samples non-hazardous by means of sterilization. To make these samples accessible, a series of observations and analytical measurements need to be completed to produce a sample catalog for the scientific community. Specialist members of the Mars Sample Return Planning Group Phase 2 (MSPG2), referred to here as the Curation Focus Group, have identified four curation goals that encompass all of the activities within the SRF: 1.Documentation of the state of the sample tubes and their contents prior to opening, 2.Inventory and tracking of the mass of each sample, 3.Preliminary assessment of lithology and any macroscopic forms of heterogeneity (on all the samples, non-invasive, in pristine isolators), 4.Sufficient characterization of the essential attributes of each sample to prepare a sample catalog and respond to requests by the sample allocation committee (partial samples, invasive, outside of pristine isolators). The sample catalog will provide data for the scientific community to make informed requests for samples for scientific investigations and for the approval of allocations of appropriate samples to satisfy these requests. The sample catalog would be populated with data and information generated during all phases of activity, including data derived from the landed Mars 2020 mission, during sample collection and transport to Earth, and reception within the Sample Receiving Facility. Data on specific samples and subsamples would also be generated during curation activities carried out within the Sample Receiving Facility and during sample safety assessments, time-sensitive studies, and a series of initial sample characterization steps we refer to as Pre-Basic Characterization (Pre-BC), Basic Characterization (BC), and Preliminary Examination (PE) phases. A significant portion of the Curation Focus Group's efforts was to determine which instrumentation would be required to produce a sample catalog for the scientific community and how and when certain instrumentation should be used. The goal is to provide enough information for the PIs to request material for their studies but to avoid facilitating studies that target scientific research that is better left to peer-reviewed competitive processes. We reviewed the proposed scientific objectives of the International MSR Objectives and Samples Team (iMOST) (Beaty et al., 2019) to make sure that the instrumentation suggested is sufficient to cover these key science planning questions (Table 1; Section S-6). It was determined that for Pre-Basic Characterization, two instruments are required, a Magnetometer (see Section S-1.1) and an X-ray Computed Tomography scanner (XCT see Section S-1.2). For Basic Characterization, there are four instruments that are considered necessary, which are analytical balance(s) (see Section S-2.1), binocular microscopes (see Section S-2.2), and multispectral imaging and hyperspectral scanning systems (see Section S-2.3). Then in Preliminary Examination, there is a set of instruments that should be available for generating more detailed information for the sample catalog. These are a Variable Pressure-Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (VP-FE-SEM see Section S-3.1), Confocal Raman spectrometer (see Section S-3.2), Deep UV Fluorescence (see Section S-3.3), a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer (see Section S-3.4), a Micro X-ray Diffractometer (see Section S-3.5), X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometer (see Section S-3.6), and Petrographic and Stereo Microscope (see Section S-3.7). All instruments are summarized in Table 1. Finally, our Curation Focus Group has outlined several specific findings for sample curation within the SRF to complete the sample catalog prior to sample distribution and made several recommendations for future work (summarized in Section 8.1) to build upon the efforts that generated this report. List of Findings MAJOR FINDING C-1: The initial sample characterization in the Sample Receiving Facility of the MSR samples can be broken down into three stages for simplicity as follows: Pre-Basic Characterization (Pre-BC), Basic Characterization (BC), and Preliminary Examination (PE). While the whole collection would be assessed through Pre-BC and BC, only subsets of samples would be used during the PE phase. FINDING C-2: Immediately after Earth landing, the spacecraft would be recovered and placed in a container designed to control and stabilize its physical conditions. The optimum temperature (Toptimum) of the sample tubes during transport to the Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) should be the same as the operating temperature of the SRF to avoid unnecessary temperature shock. FINDING C-3: The Sample Receiving Facility (SRF) should operate at room temperature (∼15-25°C), and the samples should be held at this temperature through all steps of initial sample characterization, with the option for cold storage of subsamples available in the SRF when needed. MAJOR FINDING C-4: Measurements on all the sample tubes before they are opened are essential to conduct as the samples could be compromised upon opening of the tubes. This step is called Pre-Basic Characterization (Pre-BC). These are measurements that would inform how the tubes are opened, processed, and subsampled during Basic Characterization (BC). MAJOR FINDING C-5: Careful collection and storage of the serendipitous dust on the outside of the sample tubes is a critical step in the curation process in the Sample Receiving Facility. The dust collected is a valuable resource to the scientific community. MAJOR FINDING C-6: Careful collection and storage of the unaltered and unfractionated headspace gas collected from the sample tubes is a critical step in the curation process in the Sample Receiving Facility. The gas collected is a valuable resource to the scientific community. FINDING C-7: To minimize the interaction of Earth atmospheric gases and gases that are in the sealed sample tubes, once the dust is removed from the exterior of the sample tubes, they should be placed into individual sample tube isolation chambers (STIC) as quickly as possible. FINDING C-8: There are compelling reasons to perform penetrative 3D imaging prior to opening the sample tubes. A laboratory-based X-ray Computed Tomography scanner is the best technique to use and the least damaging to organics of the penetrative imaging options considered. MAJOR FINDING C-9: Measurements on all the samples once the sample tubes are opened within the pristine isolators are essential to make initial macroscopic observations such as weighing, photographing, and optical observations. The first step to this stage is removal and collection of the headspace gas, which then starts the clock for time-sensitive measurements. This step is called Basic Characterization (BC). FINDING C-10: To avoid cross contamination between samples, it is recommended that, for processing through the isolators, the samples are organized into groups that have like properties. Given what we know about the geology of Jezero Crater, a reasonable starting assumption is five such groups. MAJOR FINDING C-11: Assuming that sample processing rates are reasonable and the samplesare organized into five sets for cross contamination avoidance purposes, at least twelve pristine isolators are required to perform Basic Characterization on the MSR samples. This total would increase by two for each additional distinct processing environment. MAJOR FINDING C-12: More advanced measurements on subsamples, beyond those included in BC, are essential for the allocation of material to the scientific community for investigation, including some measurements that can make irreversible changes to the samples. These types of measurements take place during Preliminary Examination (PE). FINDING C-13: The output of the initial sample characterization, and a key function of the curation activities within the Sample Receiving Facility, is to produce a sample catalog that would provide relevant information on the samples' physical and mineralogical/chemical characteristics (derived from the Pre-Basic Characterization, Basic Characterization, and Preliminary Examination investigations), sample safety assessments, time-sensitive studies, and information derived from mission operations to enable allocation of the most appropriate materials to the scientific community. FINDING C-14: A staffing model for curation activities, including technical support and informatics/ documentation support, should be developed (as part of ongoing Sample Receiving Facility development) to ensure that the Sample Receiving Facility is staffed appropriately to support sample curation activities. FINDING C-15: To reduce the risk of catastrophic loss of samples curated in a single facility up to, and including, decadal timescales, the sample collection should be split-once it is possible to do so-and housed in more than one location for the purpose of maximizing the long-term safety of the collection.

Photogeologic Map of the Perseverance Rover Field Site in Jezero Crater Constructed by the Mars 2020 Science Team.

The Mars 2020 Perseverance rover landing site is located within Jezero crater, a ∼ 50 km diameter impact crater interpreted to be a Noachian-aged lake basin inside the western edge of the Isidis impact structure. Jezero hosts remnants of a fluvial delta, inlet and outlet valleys, and infill deposits containing diverse carbonate, mafic, and hydrated minerals. Prior to the launch of the Mars 2020 mission, members of the Science Team collaborated to produce a photogeologic map of the Perseverance landing site in Jezero crater. Mapping was performed at a 1:5000 digital map scale using a 25 cm/pixel High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) orthoimage mosaic base map and a 1 m/pixel HiRISE stereo digital terrain model. Mapped bedrock and surficial units were distinguished by differences in relative brightness, tone, topography, surface texture, and apparent roughness. Mapped bedrock units are generally consistent with those identified in previously published mapping efforts, but this study's map includes the distribution of surficial deposits and sub-units of the Jezero delta at a higher level of detail than previous studies. This study considers four possible unit correlations to explain the relative age relationships of major units within the map area. Unit correlations include previously published interpretations as well as those that consider more complex interfingering relationships and alternative relative age relationships. The photogeologic map presented here is the foundation for scientific hypothesis development and strategic planning for Perseverance's exploration of Jezero crater.