Robotics Technology for In Situ Mobility and Sampling

Matthies, Larry; Backes, Paul; Hall, J. L.; Kennedy, B. M.; Moreland, Scott; Nayar, Hari; Nesnas, Issa; Sauder, Jonathan; Zacny, K.

doi:10.3847/25c2cfeb.21162a6c

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally, by adopting an approach where situational awareness (perception, mapping, estimation, see [27]), hazard assessment, planning/execution, payload data analysis, science planning, and FDIR functions are moved onboard, landed missions will be more productive. As an example, results from the Self-Reliant Rover study, wherein a terrestrial rover was operated by campaign intent rather sequenced activities, showed an 80% reduction in sols required to complete a campaign and 267% increase in locations surveyed per week [28].…”

Section: Future Planetary Missions and Their Autonomy Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing the Scientific Frontier with Increasingly Autonomous Systems

Amini¹,

Azari²,

Bhaskaran³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Future Planetary Missions and Their Autonomy Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing the Scientific Frontier with Increasingly Autonomous Systems

Amini¹,

Azari²,

Bhaskaran³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To enable access to a broader range of terrain, besides flying [42] and underwater [43,44] robots, many nonwheeled ground robot platforms have been developed, most of which specializes in a single mode of locomotion [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] (for a review, see Thoesen and Marvi [7] ). These primarily include: tracked, [52] multilegged, [48,49,54,56] humanoid biped, [53,57] screw-propelled, [55,58] snake-like, [55] tensegrity-based robots, [59] scaling, [50] jumping, [45,47] and rappelling [1,6,46,51] robots. A recent conference Figure 3.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Need for and Feasibility of Alternative Ground Robots to Traverse Sandy and Rocky Extraterrestrial Terrain

Lewis

2022

Advanced Intelligent Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Robotic spacecraft have vastly increased our ability to explore extraterrestrial surfaces. [1][2][3][4][5][6] Mobile robots have enabled exploration beyond a static landing site and allowed discovery-driven investigations on both the Moon and Mars. They have helped us understand the geologic history and surface environments of both bodies, conducting scientific campaigns analogous in many ways to that of a terrestrial field geologist.Since the first deployments on the Moon nearly half a century ago, mobile planetary exploration robots have progressively increased in their capabilities and enabled us to access a range of scientific targets on extraterrestrial surfaces. [2][3][4][5] To date, all of the successfully landed lunar and Martian mobile exploration robots, as well as the majority of those being developed, have adopted a conventional wheeled rover platform with a variety of architectures. [5,7] This is not surprising because one of the highest priority considerations for space applications is to maximize mechanical reliability, where wheeled platforms have excelled. [2,3,7,8] These missions have been hugely successful, often exceeding mission design lifetime and traverse distance. The 6-wheel Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity currently holds the planetary rover distance record, driving over 45 km across Meridiani Planum. [9] Similarly, the Soviet Union's 8-wheel Lunokhod 2 rover traversed 39 km across the surface of the Moon in 1973. [10] The recent 6-wheel Chinese Yutu and Yutu-2 lunar rovers have travelled hundreds of meters on the surface of the Moon. [11] Although these rovers have had an impressive track record exploring both the Moon and Mars, their missions have revealed significant limitations faced by wheel-based mobility systems, which hinder scientific exploration. For example, the Spirit Mars Exploration Rover ultimately reached the end of its mission due to a low power state after becoming embedded in a patch of loose soil at a location known as "Troy." The ferric sulfate dominated soil at this site had very low cohesion, thus being mechanically weak, and extended to a depth comparable to the wheel radius. [12] Unfortunately, this deposit was hidden beneath a weakly indurated soil crust, rendering the hazard hidden until the rover was already embedded. [9] The challenge of extricating Spirit was made more difficult due to the failure of one of its six wheels earlier in the mission, requiring modified driving strategies. [12] The Opportunity rover had similar challenges navigating ubiquitous large aeolian ripples in Meridiani Planum. In particular, it was stuck for an extended time embedded in the loose sand of the "Purgatory" ripple [13] (Figure 1A).More recently, the Curiosity Mars rover has incurred significant wheel damage along its traverse due to angular rocks protruding from the surface, which punctured the thin aluminum

show abstract

Autonomy for Space Robots: Past, Present, and Future

Nesnas

Fesq²,

Volpe³

2021

Curr Robot Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review The purpose of this review is to highlight space autonomy advances across mission phases, capture the anticipated need for autonomy and associated rationale, assess state of the practice, and share thoughts for future advancements that could lead to a new frontier in space exploration. Recent Findings Over the past two decades, several autonomous functions and system-level capabilities have been demonstrated and used in spacecraft operations. In spite of that, spacecraft today remain largely reliant on ground in the loop to assess situations and plan next actions, using pre-scripted command sequences. Advances have been made across mission phases including spacecraft navigation; proximity operations; entry, descent, and landing; surface mobility and manipulation; and data handling. But past successful practices may not be sustainable for future exploration. The ability of ground operators to predict the outcome of their plans seriously diminishes when platforms physically interact with planetary bodies, as has been experienced in two decades of Mars surface operations. This results from uncertainties that arise due to limited knowledge, complex physical interaction with the environment, and limitations of associated models. Summary Robotics and autonomy are synergistic, wherein robotics provides flexibility, autonomy exercises it to more effectively and robustly explore unknown worlds. Such capabilities can be substantially advanced by leveraging the rapid growth in SmallSats, the relative accessibility of near-Earth objects, and the recent increase in launch opportunities.

show abstract

Robotics Technology for In Situ Mobility and Sampling

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Advancing the Scientific Frontier with Increasingly Autonomous Systems

Advancing the Scientific Frontier with Increasingly Autonomous Systems

The Need for and Feasibility of Alternative Ground Robots to Traverse Sandy and Rocky Extraterrestrial Terrain

Autonomy for Space Robots: Past, Present, and Future

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About