Assessment of robotic recon for human exploration of the Moon

Fong, Terrence; Abercromby, Andrew F. J.; Bualat, Maria; Deans, Matthew; Hodges, Kip; Hurtado, J. M.; Landis, Rob; Lee, Pascal; Schreckenghost, Debra

doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2010.06.029

Cited by 28 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In prior work, 1,[6][7][8][9] we identified significant differences between how robots have previously been used for exploration and what is needed for future human exploration of the Moon and Mars. For example, past robot explorers (e.g., the Mars Exploration Rovers) were used exclusively as "primary science instruments" operating by themselves, and not as tools to support human explorers.…”

Section: B Key Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic Follow-up for Human Exploration

Fong

Bualat

Deans

et al. 2010

AIAA SPACE 2010 Conference &Amp; Exposition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We are studying how "robotic follow-up" can improve future planetary exploration. Robotic follow-up, which we define as augmenting human field work with subsequent robot activity, is a field exploration technique designed to increase human productivity and science return. To better understand the benefits, requirements, limitations and risks associated with this technique, we are conducting analog field tests with human and robot teams at the Haughton Crater impact structure on Devon Island, Canada. In this paper, we discuss the motivation for robotic follow-up, describe the scientific context and system design for our work, and present results and lessons learned from field testing.

show abstract

Section: B Key Questionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robotic Follow-up for Human Exploration

Fong

Bualat

Deans

et al. 2010

AIAA SPACE 2010 Conference &Amp; Exposition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is important to note that the mission control team was located at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, ~2,000 km from the field site ( Figure 1). None of the mission control team members had ever been to the field site and so had no a priori knowledge about the mission location (similar to the approach for human missions in Fong et al, 2010), aside from a geologic map (Currie, 1971) and remote sensing data (see Shankar et al, 2011). In some analogue deployments, mission control members work from infrastructure at the field site (e.g., Eppler et al, 2011) In such cases, mission control personnel gain first-hand understanding of the analogue site as they transfer to and from their work space at the start and end of each field day and their situational awareness is supplemented by their personal knowledge of the area.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Issues of geologically-focused situational awareness in robotic planetary missions: Lessons from an analogue mission at Mistastin Lake impact structure, Labrador, Canada

Antonenko

Osinski

Battler

et al. 2013

Advances in Space Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Remote robotic data provides different information than that obtained from immersion in the field. This significantly affects the geological situational awareness experienced by members of a mission control science team. In order to optimize science return from planetary robotic missions, these limitations must be understood and their effects mitigated to fully leverage the field experience of scientists at mission control. Results from a 13-day analogue deployment at the Mistastin Lake impact structure in Labrador, Canada suggest that scale, relief, geological detail, and time are intertwined issues that impact the mission control science team"s effectiveness in interpreting the geology of an area. These issues are evaluated and several mitigation options are suggested. Scale was found to be difficult to interpret without the reference of known objects, even when numerical scale data were available. For this reason, embedding intuitive scale-indicating features into image data is recommended. Since relief is not conveyed in 2D images, both 3D data and observations from multiple angles are required. Furthermore, the 3D data must be observed in animation or as anaglyphs, since without such assistance much of the relief information in 3D data is not communicated. Geological detail may also be missed due to the time required to collect, analyze, and request data. We also suggest that these issues can be addressed, in part, by an improved understanding of the operational time costs and benefits of scientific data collection. Robotic activities operate on inherently slow timescales. This fact needs to be embraced and accommodated. Instead of focusing too quickly on the details of a target of interest, thereby potentially minimizing science return, time should be allocated at first to more broad data collection at that target, including preliminary surveys, multiple observations from various vantage points, and progressively smaller scale of focus. This operational model more closely follows techniques employed by field geologists and is fundamental to the geologic interpretation of an area. Even so, an operational time cost/benefit analyses should be carefully considered in each situation, to determine when such comprehensive data collection would maximize the science return. Finally, it should be recognized that analogue deployments cannot faithfully model the time scales of robotic planetary missions. Analogue missions are limited by the difficulty and expense of fieldwork. Thus, analogue deployments should focus on smaller aspects of robotic missions and test components in a modular way (e.g., dropping communications constraints, limiting mission scope, focusing on a specific problem, spreading the mission over several field seasons, etc.).

show abstract

“…Other robotic lunar analogue missions have tested communication schemes involving real-time communications between the rover and Mission Control, which were at different sites (Fong, 2010). In addition, some DRATS humanrobotic analogue missions have also tested twice a day (NASA, 2011) communication schemes.…”

Section: Locations Were Georeferenced Manually By Mission Control Teamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other analogue missions, conducted by NASA, have also simulated robotic lunar surface operations using a remote Mission Control team, primarily through the Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) program (e.g., Fong et al, 2010). These studies applied a hybrid of Apollo, Space Shuttle, Space Station, and MER operational concepts (Yingst et al, 2011;Fong et al, 2010).…”

Section: Comparison With Other Similar Analogue Deploymentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Mission Control Architecture for robotic lunar sample return as field tested in an analogue deployment to the sudbury impact structure

Moores

Francis

Mader

et al. 2012

Advances in Space Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Mission Control Architecture is presented for a Robotic Lunar Sample Return Mission which builds upon the experience of the landed missions of the NASA Mars Exploration Program. This architecture consists of four separate processes working in parallel at Mission Control and achieving buy-in for plans sequentially instead of simultaneously from all members of the team. These four processes were: Science Processing, Science Interpretation, Planning and Mission Evaluation. Science Processing was responsible for creating products from data downlinked from the field and is organized by instrument. Science Interpretation was responsible for determining whether or not science goals are being met and what measurements need to be taken to satisfy these goals. The Planning process, responsible for scheduling and sequencing observations, and the Evaluation process that fostered inter-process communications, reporting and documentation assisted these processes. This organization is advantageous for its flexibility as shown by the ability of the structure to produce plans for the rover every two hours, for the rapidity with which Mission Control team members may be trained and for the relatively small size of each individual team. This architecture was tested in an analogue mission to the Sudbury impact structure from June 6-17, 2011. A rover was used which was capable of developing a network of locations that could be revisited using a teach and repeat method. This allowed the science team to process several different outcrops in parallel, downselecting at each stage to ensure that the samples selected for caching were the most representative of the site. Over the course of 10 days, 18 rock samples were collected from 5 different outcrops, 182 individual field activities -such as roving or acquiring an image mosaic or other data product -were completed within 43 command cycles, and the rover travelled over 2,200 m. Data transfer from communications passes were filled to 74%. Sample triage was simulated to allow down-selection to 1kg of material for return to Earth.

show abstract

Assessment of robotic recon for human exploration of the Moon

Cited by 28 publications

References 7 publications

Robotic Follow-up for Human Exploration

Robotic Follow-up for Human Exploration

Issues of geologically-focused situational awareness in robotic planetary missions: Lessons from an analogue mission at Mistastin Lake impact structure, Labrador, Canada

A Mission Control Architecture for robotic lunar sample return as field tested in an analogue deployment to the sudbury impact structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About