SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “traverse planning”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1999

Rock Statistics at the Mars Pathfinder Landing Site, Roughness and Roving on Mars

Several rock counts have been carried out at the Mars Pathfinder landing site producing consistent statistics of rock coverage and size-frequency distributions. These rock statistics provide a primary element of "ground truth" for anchoring remote sensing information used to pick the Pathfinder, and future, landing sites. The observed rock population statistics should also be consistent with the emplacement and alteration processes postulated to govern the landing site landscape. The rock population databases can however be used in ways that go beyond the calculation of cumulative number and cumulative area distributions versus rock diameter and height. Since the spatial parameters measured to characterize each rock are determined with stereo image pairs, the rock database serves as a subset of the full landing site digital terrain model (DTM). Insofar as a rock count can be carried out in a speedier, albeit coarser, manner than the full DTM analysis, rock counting offers several operational and scientific products in the near term. Quantitative rock mapping adds further information to the geomorphic study of the landing site, and can also be used for rover traverse planning. Statistical analysis of the surface roughness using the rock count proxy DTM is sufficiently accurate when compared to the full DTM to compare with radar remote sensing roughness measures, and with rover traverse profiles.

Haldemann, A. F. C.↗

NASA NTRS2014

Comparing Geologic Data Sets Collected by Planetary Analog Traverses and by Standard Geologic Field Mapping: Desert Rats Data Analysis

Geologic mapping involves interpreting relationships between identifiable units and landforms to understand the formative history of a region. Traditional field techniques are used to accomplish this on Earth. Mapping proves more challenging for other planets, which are studied primarily by orbital remote sensing and, less frequently, by robotic and human surface exploration. Systematic comparative assessments of geologic maps created by traditional mapping versus photogeology together with data from planned traverses are limited. The objective of this project is to produce a geologic map from data collected on the Desert Research and Technology Studies (RATS) 2010 analog mission using Apollo-style traverses in conjunction with remote sensing data. This map is compared with a geologic map produced using standard field techniques.

Feng, Wanda↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Innovative Features of NASA's Celestial Mapping System to Support Exploration in the Lunar South Pole

Introduction: NASA's Celestial Mapping System (CMS) is developed to address the need for 3D tools for planetary science investigations, mission planning, in-situ operations, in a 3D-first design constructed around a unified view of a planetary globe. At present CMS provides many critical functionalities that include 1) Equipment planning and optimized placement on Lunar surface 2) Line of sight (visibility ) analysis 3) Powerful measurement tools based on 3D terrain with realistic 3D models to represent rovers, astronauts and equipment 4) Visualization of de-rived mapping products (e.g. resource maps), and 5) Data engine for hosting new observations that are not available in other contemporary lunar data tools. CMS is built on the foundation of powerful NASA WorldWind globe engines. In near future, users will be able to simultaneously deploy CMS onto multiple hardware configurations and platforms such as Windows, Linux, iOS and Android. The users will also have the flexibility to update to the latest imagery and terrain datasets as they are being acquired (in real time) before and/or during the exploration mission. CMS is also capable of consumption and analysis of data from locally hosted and external sources. It supports Open Geospatial Consorti-um (OGC) data and file standards, with current integrations of datasets from the Astrogeology Science Center of USGS which include global and local data acquired from NASA (LRO, Clementine, Lunar Orbiter) and JAXA (SELENE/Kaguya) with the capability of integrating more datasets. With development experience in both the end-user application and planetary engine side, CMS is also able to adapt to newer Lunar cartography standards as they develop and become recognized by international geospatial panels. Overcoming Polar Distortions: 3D geospatial applications traditionally suffer from significant distortion of imagery at the poles due to following reasons – 1) distortions in the source imagery 2) Incompatible tessellation algorithm on the poles 3) map projections. In the lunar context, with the focus on the South pole, this is not acceptable. The CMS team is researching ways to address polar distortion of imagery with new tessellation algorithms and by reprojecting the data using projections that are more accurate in polar scenarios. Figure1 shows the potential error introduced by different tessellation methods, represented by the red and green circles for Shoemaker crater. There is ~2 Km difference in the placement of the crater. Line of Sight Analysis and Traverse Planning: We have developed a built-in line of sight analysis (LOS) tool in CMS that analyzes the terrain profile and obstructions and provides the visibility of a given terrain for a remote observer. Figure 2 shows the viewshed analysis on the PSR in Nobile region. The PSR was created with help of HORUS generated images. The yellow pin shows the observer location outside the PSR. The yellow area shows the visible part of PSR. The obstructed area with no visibility for the observer is shown in red. This analysis was ex-tended further to set different heights for various observers and then perform the viewshed analysis. Combining the different visibility profiles can help designing improved traverses within the crater.

Geospatial Mapping↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Innovative Features of NASA's Celestial Mapping System to Support Exploration in the Lunar South Pole

Geospatial Mapping↗

NASA NTRS1995

A Mars Rover Mission Simulation on Kilauea Volcano

A field experiment to simulate a rover mission on Mars was performed using the Russian Marsokhod rover deployed on Kilauea Volcano HI in February, 1995. A Russian Marsokhod rover chassis was equipped with American avionics equipment, stereo cameras on a pan and tilt platform, a digital high resolution body-mounted camera, and a manipulator arm on which was mounted a camera with a close-up lens. The six wheeled rover is 2 meters long and has a mass of 120 kg. The imaging system was designed to simulate that used on the planned "Mars Together" mission. The rover was deployed on Kilauea Volcano HI and operated from NASA Ames by a team of planetary geologists and exobiologists. Two modes of mission operations were simulated for three days each: (1) long time delay, low data bandwidth (simulating a Mars mission), and (2) live video, wide-bandwidth data (allowing active control simulating a Lunar rover mission or a Mars rover mission controlled from on or near the Martian surface). Simulated descent images (aerial photographs) were used to plan traverses to address a detailed set of science questions. The actual route taken was determined by the science team and the traverse path was frequently changed in response to the data acquired and to unforeseen operational issues. Traverses were thereby optimized to efficiently answer scientific questions. During the Mars simulation, the rover traversed a distance of 800 m. Based on the time delay between Earth and Mars, we estimate that the same operation would have taken 30 days to perform on Mars. This paper will describe the mission simulation and make recommendations about incorporating rovers into the Mars surveyor program.

Stoker, Carol↗

NASA NTRS2005

The Mars Exploration Rover Cameras: A Status Report

With more than 68,000 images returned from the surface of Mars to date, the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) camera suite continues to perform extremely well. Image signal to noise ratios (SNRs) are greater than 200:1, flat fields remain stable, and single-pixel degradation has been negligible. Acting as the eyes of the robotic field geologists, the 18 MER cameras continue to play a leading role in major scientific findings at both Gusez Crater and Meridiana Planum. All 4 types of cameras, the hazard avoidance (Hazcam), navigation (Navcam), the color panoramic (Pancam) and the microscopic imager (MI), continue to return data from the Martian surface from both Rovers. In addition to the rover cameras, each lander utilized a descent imager (DI) to help facilitate safe landing and provide landing site context. The Pancam and MI are part of the scientific instrument payload of the rovers. In addition to gathering gathering science image data, the Pacams also support sun finding and measure atmospheric dust optical depth. The Hazcam and Navcam stereo pairs are used for traverse planning, autonomous navigation and general imaging.

Schwochert, M. A.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) 2010 Science Operations: Operational Approaches and Lessons Learned for Managing Science during Human Planetary Surface Missions

Desert Research and Technology Studies (Desert RATS) is a multi-year series of hardware and operations tests carried out annually in the high desert of Arizona on the San Francisco Volcanic Field. These activities are designed to exercise planetary surface hardware and operations in conditions where long-distance, multi-day roving is achievable, and they allow NASA to evaluate different mission concepts and approaches in an environment less costly and more forgiving than space.The results from the RATS tests allows election of potential operational approaches to planetary surface exploration prior to making commitments to specific flight and mission hardware development. In previous RATS operations, the Science Support Room has operated largely in an advisory role, an approach that was driven by the need to provide a loose science mission framework that would underpin the engineering tests. However, the extensive nature of the traverse operations for 2010 expanded the role of the science operations and tested specific operational approaches. Science mission operations approaches from the Apollo and Mars-Phoenix missions were merged to become the baseline for this test. Six days of traverse operations were conducted during each week of the 2-week test, with three traverse days each week conducted with voice and data communications continuously available, and three traverse days conducted with only two 1-hour communications periods per day. Within this framework, the team evaluated integrated science operations management using real-time, tactical science operations to oversee daily crew activities, and strategic level evaluations of science data and daily traverse results during a post-traverse planning shift. During continuous communications, both tactical and strategic teams were employed. On days when communications were reduced to only two communications periods per day, only a strategic team was employed. The Science Operations Team found that, if communications are good and down-linking of science data is ensured, high quality science returns is possible regardless of communications. What is absent from reduced communications is the scientific interaction between the crew on the planet and the scientists on the ground. These scientific interactions were a critical part of the science process and significantly improved mission science return over reduced communications conditions. The test also showed that the quality of science return is not measurable by simple numerical quantities but is, in fact, based on strongly non-quantifiable factors, such as the interactions between the crew and the Science Operations Teams. Although the metric evaluation data suggested some trends, there was not sufficient granularity in the data or specificity in the metrics to allow those trends to be understood on numerical data alone.

Eppler, Dean↗

NASA NTRS2013

Geologic Interpretation of Data Sets Collected by Planetary Analog Geology Traverses and by Standard Geologic Field Mapping: A Comparison Study - Part 1

Geologic maps integrate the distributions, contacts, and compositions of rock and sediment bodies as a means to interpret local to regional formative histories. Applying terrestrial mapping techniques to other planets is challenging because data is collected primarily by orbiting instruments, with infrequent, spatiallylimited in situ human and robotic exploration. Although geologic maps developed using remote data sets and limited "Apollo-style" field access likely contain inaccuracies, the magnitude, type, and occurrence of these are only marginally understood. This project evaluates the interpretative and cartographic accuracy of both field- and remote-based mapping approaches by comparing two 1:24,000 scale geologic maps of the San Francisco Volcanic Field (SFVF), north-central Arizona. The first map is based on traditional field mapping techniques, while the second is based on remote data sets, augmented with limited field observations collected during NASA Desert Research & Technology Studies (RATS) 2010 exercises. The RATS mission used Apollo-style methods not only for pre-mission traverse planning but also to conduct geologic sampling as part of science operation tests. Cross-comparison demonstrates that the Apollo-style map identifies many of the same rock units and determines a similar broad history as the field-based map. However, field mapping techniques allow markedly improved discrimination of map units, particularly unconsolidated surficial deposits, and recognize a more complex eruptive history than was possible using Apollo-style data. Further, the distribution of unconsolidated surface units was more obvious in the remote sensing data to the field team after conducting the fieldwork. The study raises questions about the most effective approach to balancing mission costs with the rate of knowledge capture, suggesting that there is an inflection point in the "knowledge capture curve" beyond which additional resource investment yields progressively smaller gains in geologic knowledge.

Eppler, Dean B.↗

NASA NTRS2017

Minerva: User-Centered Science Operations Software Capability for Future Human Exploration

In June of 2016, the Biologic Analog Science Associated with Lava Terrains (BASALT) research project conducted its first field deployment, which we call BASALT-1. BASALT-1 consisted of a science-driven field campaign in a volcanic field in Idaho as a simulated human mission to Mars. Scientists and mission operators were provided a suite of ground software tools that we refer to collectively as Minerva to carry out their work. Minerva provides capabilities for traverse planning and route optimization, timeline generation and display, procedure management, execution monitoring, data archiving, visualization, and search. This paper describes the Minerva architecture, constituent components, use cases, and some preliminary findings from the BASALT-1 campaign.

Deans, Matthew↗

NASA NTRS2017

Minerva: User-Centered Science Operations Software Capability for Future Human Exploration

Deans, Matthew↗

NASA NTRS2015

Science Training History of the Apollo Astronauts

Following President Kennedy’s initiation of Project Apollo, NASA underwent substantial changes in personnel, organization, and programs and faced a major question: what to do on the Moon after landing. Once a decision that science activities, particularly geoscience, should be pursued, considerable debate ensued over how to accomplish this. Questions arose over instruments and tools required, samples and photos to be returned, landing site selection, and crew composition. Answers to these questions required major efforts for planning traverses on the Moon and training the astronauts in the extensive procedures necessary in low gravity to use tools, set up instruments, take adequate photos, collect and document samples, and provide proper descriptions. In addition to astronauts on the surface, an astronaut in lunar orbit managed additional instruments, photography and verbal descriptions. Training for these activities averaged nearly one hundred hours per month for over a year for each crew. There were many problems as the training progressed: adjusting groups and backgrounds of the training personnel for the best combination of personalities and skills, overcoming logistical troubles, revising awkward procedures, determining optimum means of communications between all involved groups, and devising contingency procedures for real-time problems. By the last mission these problems were overcome.

Phinney, William C.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Repurposing Drilling Control Diagnostics for Subsurface Edge Detection and Boundary Advisement During Planetary Drilling

Informed decision-making during lunar drilling and sampling missions will require data monitoring tools and specialized ground data systems. Accurate and updated situational awareness, with ongoing data monitoring, is critical for timely responses by to incoming science data. Traverse plans and scheduled activities may need to be flexibly changed in order to react to unexpected data or situations. Unlike (for example) Mars missions, the relative lightspeed closeness of the Moon allows for near-real-time ground processing of incoming mission and instrument data. An Apollo-class lunar regolith drill will in a sense “travel” a meter or two vertically at a given subsurface characterization site. As the drill penetrates into lunar regolith, it is likely to encounter a range of material densities, orientations, fracture toughness, and (perhaps) ice percentages. Lunar drill telemetry can provide science teams with a valuable first look into the subsurface structure, the regolith bulk properties, and constituents at each drilled site. Real-time AI-based recognition and reaction to downhole situations has been developed for automated deeper drilling on Mars and beyond. We can leverage the same knowledge bases and pattern-matching as areal-time interpreter of the subsurface, a situational awareness tool during drilling operations. We recently (Sept. 2019) demonstrated this AI drilling monitoring and analysis capability, in control of in-situ drilling and sampling operations, mounted on a KREX-2 rover in Chile’s Atacama Desert. Terrestrial automated drilling log analyses in oil exploration have used similar machine learning techniques in classifying and identifying features in drilling logs –but these typically are designed assuming a drilling fluid influencing downhole measurements and data (permeability, resistivity). Drilling models and existing AI software designed to detect and respond to drilling faults and hard materials can be repurposed, for near-real-time (ground-based) interpretation of drilling telemetry –a potentially valuable advisory tool for strata boundaries and changes in drilling parameters. On the Moon, this approach could be used to study the structure and to some extent the composition of lunar regolith vs. borehole depth, based on recognizable variations in fracture hardness, drilling energy and penetration rates while actively drilling. Since the early 2000s, a series of increasingly-capable real-time drilling telemetry interpretation and characterization software tools have been developed. These subsurface models and software tools have monitored the real-time drilling data received, and automatically identified changes in drill behavior (e.g., encountering a harder target layer, bit inclusions, drill choking due to infall downhole, and others) correlating these with subsurface structures and features. We discuss the mappings between drill borehole parameters, faults or events detected, and modeled changes in rock layer boundaries, in examples drawn from field testing at analog sites in an Arctic impact crater, Rio Tinto, and Chile’s Atacama Desert. These demonstrate how subsurface structural boundaries led to fault detections and responses by the software.

drilling advisor↗

NASA NTRS2022

Celestial Mapping System Video Demonstration Part 4

The current presentation focuses on the work performed by the authors, to consume a unique dataset of super-enhanced images of the permanently shadowed regions (PSRs) at the lunar south pole which were produced by the Hyper-effective nOise Removal U-net Software (HORUS) tool. This tool was developed in direct support of NASA's VIPER and Artemis programs to enhance the extremely low-light images of the interior of PSRs and provide the first-time ability to see within these regions at 3m scale visibility. We focused on the region near Nobili crater, selected site for VIPER mission and stitched several images to create a high-resolution map of B01 crater, that included the visualization of PSRs. We have developed an in-built line of sight analysis tool in CMS, that analyzes the terrain profile and obstructions and provides the visibility of a given terrain for a remote observer. This tool was utilized to perform viewshed analysis to investigate the area inside the PSR B01, a remote observer such as a rover could see without actually crossing the region. This analysis was extended further to set different heights for various observers and then perform the viewshed analysis. The combined visibility profile at different locations could subsequently lead to traverse planning.

Mapping↗

NASA NTRS2023

A New View of the Lunar South Pole from the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA)

Upcoming missions to the lunar south pole require detailed maps over large areas to fully characterize landing sites locally and regionally and to place their data into proper geologic context. To that end, we enhanced the Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA) altimetry dataset for the south polar region, from which we produced new maps of topography, topographic roughness, and permanently shadowed regions (PSRs). The roughness maps reveal a diversity of terrains characterized by hectometer-scale roughness which is controlled in this region primarily by cratering and downslope mass transport. The south polar region is littered with linear roughness features of order ~1 – 10 km wide and ~10s – 100s of km long hypothesized to be secondary impacts within extended ejecta rays. Non uniformities in these features could reflect variations in secondary impactor properties and/or target terrain properties. Poleward of 80° S, the PSR cumulative size-frequency distribution (CSFD) shows an approximately power-law behavior whose exponent has a spatial variation of ~10%. PSRs with areas < 1 km2 contain 15 ± 5% of the total PSR area. Finally, we studied the effect of false positives and false negatives on the accuracy of the measured PSR cumulative size-frequency distribution (CSFD) and on the area for any individual PSR. The new maps presented here have many applications in the science and exploration of the lunar south polar region, such as geologic mapping and traverse planning.

Michael K. Barker↗

NASA NTRS2024

Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies

Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. NASA conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km (distances relevant to LTV-SYS071 and -029 requirements). Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 11.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “first-look” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.

LTV↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Viper Science Operations: Lunar Dynamic Science Table and ‘Tracker’ Tool.

Introduction: The NASA VIPER lunar rover mission [1] presents a unique operational paradigm within the history of robotic spaceflight. The proximity of the Moon to the Earth and the terrain elements (surface characteristics, light/shadow dynamics, communication links) of the Lunar South Polar landing site create unprecedented operational conditions between these two planetary bodies. Apollo era lunar science and exploration included humans in situ to operate instruments and assimilate observational inputs in real-time. Previous lunar orbital missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges, that were weeks in duration. Mars rover missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges between Mars and Earth, that were hours, days, and weeks in length. In the case of the VIPER mission, our operational decisioning for rover driving and instrument commanding will be compressed to minute-scale timeframes. These operational conditions will directly impact the workflow and speed with which the VIPER Science Team (VST) will be required to synthesize and analyze data and produce timely science-driven decisions throughout surface mission operations [2]. The VST in the VIPER Mission Science Center (MSC) and the Mission Operations Center (MOC) shall provide mission-enhancing scientific input to guide traverse planning and drill site confirmation/selection throughout surface operations. Further, the VST input will be of vital importance to the mission’s ability to maximize science return and to meet broader NASA objectives for future lunar ISRU and exploration activities. Specifically, the VST in the MSC and MOC will provide science-driven, consensus-based, timely input and decision-making to enhance mission operations and align mission science return with broader Agency goals. They will enable the characterization of the distribution (lateral and vertical extent, concentration, variability), form (chemical/physical state of these reservoirs of lunar water and key isotopes), and context (e.g., accessibility/overburden, environment, soil mechanics, trafficability, and temperatures) of lunar polar volatiles and water content for the VIPER mission. Additionally, the MSC will be selecting or reconfirming the location and path towards and from the third drill site (Drill Site Charlie) within each Science Station [6]. To enable scientific decision-making within the operational paradigm of the VIPER lunar rover mission requires detailed articulation of the VST’s scientific objectives and goals, and the operationalization of these objectives and goals through their association with specific data products, tasks, and decisional procedures. Further, defining and tracking scientific success metrics throughout surface operations will enable the VST to have a quantified understanding of the mission’s evolving ability to accomplish the stated scientific objectives and goals both during and after the mission. This abstract provides an overview of the methods and development activities towards defining, operationalizing, and tracking scientific objectives and goals throughout VIPER surface operations. Specifically, we focus on the VIPER Lunar Dynamic Science Table (LDST) and the VIPER “Tracker” tool.

Darlene Sze Shien Lim↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Real-Time Science Decisioning During High Tempo-High Intensity Mission Operations and the Role of Analogs

Introduction: NASA’s VIPER mission presents a unique operational paradigm within the history of robotic spaceflight. The proximity of the Moon to the Earth and the terrain elements (surface characteristics, light/shadow dynamics, communication links) of the lunar South Polar landing site create unprecedented operational conditions between these two planetary bodies. Apollo era lunar science and exploration included humans in situ to operate instruments and assimilate observational inputs in real-time. Previous lunar orbital missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges, that were weeks in length. Mars rover missions have worked to operational timescales, e.g., decisional timelines and communication exchanges between Mars and Earth, that were hours, days, and weeks in length. In the case of the VIPER mission, our operational decisioning for rover driving and instrument commanding will be compressed to minute-scale timeframes. These operational conditions directly impact the manner and speed with which the VIPER Science Team (VST) is required to synthesize and analyze data and produce timely science-driven decisions throughout surface mission operations. The VST shall provide mission enhancing scientific input to guide rover traverse planning and drill site confirmation and selection throughout surface operations. Further, the VST input will be of vital importance to the mission’s ability to maximize science return and to meet broader NASA objectives for future lunar in-situ resource utilization (ISRU)and exploration activities. The VST co-located in the Mission Science Center (MSC) will be responsive to the tactical operational cadence of the Mission Operations Center (MOC) and will provide further strategic and Long-Term Planning (LTP) guidance to the mission. The VIPER Science Operations & Integration(SO&I)team has developed an architecture that is focused on the infusion of science-decisioning into the operational framework and execution cadence of VIPER. NASA analog research has played a significant role in the construction of the VIPER science operations systems. As an example, the SO&I team has led analog missions that have focused on bringing together expertise in the sciences (natural, applied and social) and in operations in service of learning how to build and hold together interdisciplinary work environments and what tools are needed to support high tempo, high intensity integrated decisioning. These experiences have provided an essential foundation of knowledge to the VIPER team. Those analogs that specifically influenced the VIPER science operations construct were identified through a process of comparative analysis to prioritize those that offered relevance in whole or in part, and those that did not. The analog research output that provided extensibility to the VIPER science operations architecture included remote teams of humans and robots in cooperation (synchronous and asynchronous) with simulated earthbound systems, engineering and science teams, and the integrated assembly of tools that supported scientific analysis and data synthesis and provided infrastructure for the remote testing framework. Analogs which included real-time data monitoring, synthesis, visualization and access in a democratized and operationalized manner were of particular interest to the development of the VIPER MSC toolset both in terms of the technology and the processes used to develop the supporting infrastructure. We anticipate that each subsequent mission to the lunar south pole, whether with robots or humans, will be able to optimize science and exploration return by evolving strategies to infuse real-time collaborative science-decisioning. Furthermore, these efforts will result in a foundation for science operations development in support of human-robotic exploration of deep space and Mars. NASA analogs can continue to provide the opportunity to prepare, test and iterate on the operational concepts and tools that will support these ever-expanding space exploration efforts. Our presentation will include an overview of the VIPER Science Operations & Integration development process and specifics on what aspects of analog research have had a significant impact on our work systems.

D S S Lim↗

NASA NTRS2025

Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) Remote Teleoperation Studies Under Four Lunar Communication Latencies

Remotely operating a lunar rover from Earth while subject to an Earth-Moon time delay of multiple seconds could result in a dangerous state where the roving vehicle is either damaged or lost, thereby potentially compromising an entire mission or series of missions. Providing the right capabilities to the remote operator to manage inherent communication latencies will be important for remote driving to be successful. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted two studies to investigate the average speed and number of kilometers per day that an operator on Earth could teleoperate a notional Artemis unpressurized rover with minimal remote operator capabilities under 0- and 4-second communication delays (April 2023 study) and 6- and 8-second delays (August 2023 study). A primary goal of these studies was to understand if an Artemis Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) could cover 6 kilometers (km) in 24 hours when operated remotely. During the April 2023 evaluation, eight test operators used an in-house simulation of the lunar surface South Pole to teleoperate a NASA government reference LTV. Each operator received approximately 30 minutes of remote driving familiarization/training prior to their test run. Operators viewed the surrounding terrain via a single, rover mast-mounted, high-resolution camera with pan/tilt/zoom capabilities; continuous communication was provided throughout all testing. In the August 2023 evaluation, remote operators received approximately 3 hours of familiarization training in each latency, and the simulation environment provided remote operators with an operator-selected rate limiter to enable finer sensitivity in the hand controller and a predictive circle function to better assist operators with predicting the path the vehicle could take. All test operators were able to successfully navigate and drive through six different types of terrain and five planned traverse scenarios using natural lighting under all communication delays. Results for average speeds for each communication delay, computed by averaging the data from all test conditions for that latency and all operators, are shown in the table below. The average speed data was then used to derive the total time needed to cover 6 km, 8 km, and 20 km. Remote operators drove slower and used the brake more frequently when subject to a communication latency as opposed to no communication latency. Subjective workload assessments revealed that while operating in a latency the overall workload significantly increased when compared to a 0-s delay with mental demand, frustration, and performance being the primary contributing factors. Driving strategies in the 0-s delay did not vary significantly among subjects; however, in the 4-s delay condition, three different driving strategies were identified. In the 6-s and 8-s latency conditions the operator’s use of the cruise control to maintain speed was more apparent. Additionally, over the course of the August study, the operator took advantage of the predictive circle indicator on the navigation display and over 95% of the operator’s navigation used the mast camera 180-degree panning function for ground truthing in terms of boulders and craters. Operators started to define more specific parameters in driving strategies for general operations. This consisted of setting the vehicle into a low-speed cruise mode of approximately 1–1.5 kph and noticing driving performance of the vehicle seemed to be much harder at slower speeds 0.4–0.8 kph; however, the vehicle was more responsive at speeds of 2.9–3.6 kph. Regardless of communication delay, operators used both the horizontal translation rails and the vehicle fenders as guides to predict a path for the vehicle through heavily concentrated terrain features. Test operators acknowledged that the teleoperations training for this study was substantially less than what an actual LTV remote operator will ultimately receive. They estimated a minimum of 20 to 100 hours spread across multiple days and weeks (e.g., strategies included immersion training over a 3-day period, to a short 8-week starter program) would be needed to get an operator ~ 60% proficient (i.e., able to complete a subset of remote driving tasks), to a yearlong program for full proficiency in remote driving tasks under all terrain types and natural lighting conditions. Remotely operating a vehicle on another planetary body while subject to communication latency is a complex task. Speed, distance covered, time spent driving, time spent navigating, brake usage and rock contacts are all affected by operator workload, driving strategies, workstation ergonomics and training. These studies provided a “firstlook” answer to a potential system requirement (namely if a remote operator could cover a given distance in a given amount of time); however, considerable general knowledge was gained to begin to understand what it will take to make a successful lunar rover teleoperator.

LTV↗