Research Objectives for Human Missions in the Proving Ground of Cis-Lunar Space
No abstract available
Spann, J. F.↗
Engineering topics
Eppler, D. B.
Publications and source records attributed to Eppler, D. B..
Research Objectives for Human Missions in the Proving Ground of Cis-Lunar Space
Beginning in as early as 2023, crewed missions beyond low Earth orbit will begin enabled by the new capabilities of the SLS and Orion vehicles. This will initiate the "Proving Ground" phase of human exploration with Mars as an ultimate destination. The primary goal of the Proving Ground is to demonstrate the capability of suitably long duration spaceflight without need of continuous support from Earth, i.e. become Earth Independent. A major component of the Proving Ground phase is to conduct research activities aimed at accomplishing major objectives selected from a wide variety of disciplines including but not limited to: Astronomy, Heliophysics, Fundamental Physics, Planetary Science, Earth Science, Human Systems, Fundamental Space Biology, Microgravity, and In A major component of the Proving Ground phase is to conduct research activities aimed at accomplishing major objectives selected from a wide variety of disciplines including but not limited to: Astronomy, Heliophysics, Fundamental Physics, Planetary Science, Earth Science, Human Systems, Fundamental Space Biology, Microgravity, and In Situ Resource Utilization. Mapping and prioritizing the most important objectives from these disciplines will provide a strong foundation for establishing the architecture to be utilized in the Proving Ground.
Niles, P. B.↗
Yet Another Lunar Surface Geologic Exploration Architecture Concept (What, Again?): A Senior Field Geologist's Integrated View
Lunar surface geological exploration should be founded on a number of key elements that are seemingly disparate, but which can form an integrated operational concept when properly conceived and deployed. If lunar surface geological exploration is to be useful, this integration of key elements needs to be undertaken throughout the development of both mission hardware, training and operational concepts. These elements include the concept of mission class, crew makeup and training, surface mobility assets that are matched with mission class, and field tools and IT assets that make data collection, sharing and archiving transparent to the surface crew.
Eppler, D. B.↗
Comparing and Reconciling Traditional Field and Photogeologic Mapping Techniques: Lessons from the San Francisco Volcanic Field, Arizona
Cartographic products and - specifically - geologic maps provide critical assistance for establishing physical and temporal frameworks of planetary surfaces. The technical methods that result in the creation of geologic maps vary depending on how observations are made as well as the overall intent of the final products [1-3]. These methods tend to follow a common linear work flow, including the identification and delineation of spatially and temporally discrete materials (units), the documentation of their primary (emplacement) and secondary (erosional) characteristics, analysis of the relative and absolute age relationships between these materials, and the collation of observations and interpretations into an objective map product. The "objectivity" of a map is critical cross comparison with overlapping maps and topical studies as well as its relevance to scientific posterity. However, the "accuracy" and "correctness" of a geologic map is very subject to debate. This can be evidenced by comparison of existing geologic maps at various scales, particularly those compiled through field- and remote-based mapped efforts. Our study focuses on comparing the fidelity of (1) "Apollo-style" geologic investigations, where typically non-geologist crew members follow static traverse routes established through pre-mission planning, and (2) "traditional" field-based investigations, where geologists are given free rein to observe without preplanned routes. This abstract summarizes the regional geology wherein our study was conducted, presents the geologic map created from traditional field mapping techniques, and offers basic insights into how geologic maps created from different tactics can be reconciled in support of exploratory missions. Additional abstracts [4-6] from this study discuss various exploration and science results of these efforts.
Skinner, J. A., Jr.↗
Mapping Planetary Volcanic Deposits: Identifying Vents and Distingushing between Effects of Eruption Conditions and Local Lava Storage and Release on Flow Field Morphology
Terrestrial geologic mapping techniques are regularly used for "photogeologic" mapping of other planets, but these approaches are complicated by the diverse type, areal coverage, and spatial resolution of available data sets. When available, spatially-limited in-situ human and/or robotic surface observations can sometimes introduce a level of detail that is difficult to integrate with regional or global interpretations. To assess best practices for utilizing observations acquired from orbit and on the surface, our team conducted a comparative study of geologic mapping and interpretation techniques. We compared maps generated for the same area in the San Francisco Volcanic Field (SFVF) in northern Arizona using 1) data collected for reconnaissance before and during the 2010 Desert Research And Technology Studies campaign, and 2) during a traditional, terrestrial field geology study. The operations, related results, and direct mapping comparisons are discussed in companion LPSC abstracts [1-3]. Here we present new geologic interpretations for a volcanic cone and related lava flows as derived from all approaches involved in this study. Mapping results indicate a need for caution when interpreting past eruption conditions on other planetary surfaces from orbital data alone.
Bleacher, J. E.↗
Mapping Planetary Volcanic Deposits: Identifying Vents and Distinguishing between Effects of Eruption Conditions and Local Storage and Release on Flow Field Morphology
Terrestrial geologic mapping techniques are regularly used for "photogeologic" mapping of other planets, but these approaches are complicated by the diverse type, areal coverage, and spatial resolution of available data sets. When available, spatially-limited in-situ human and/or robotic surface observations can sometimes introduce a level of detail that is difficult to integrate with regional or global interpretations. To assess best practices for utilizing observations acquired from orbit and on the surface, our team conducted a comparative study of geologic mapping and interpretation techniques. We compared maps generated for the same area in the San Francisco Volcanic Field (SFVF) in northern Arizona using 1) data collected for reconnaissance before and during the 2010 Desert Research And Technology Studies campaign, and 2) during a traditional, terrestrial field geology study. The operations, related results, and direct mapping comparisons are discussed in companion LPSC abstracts. Here we present new geologic interpretations for a volcanic cone and related lava flows as derived from all approaches involved in this study. Mapping results indicate a need for caution when interpreting past eruption conditions on other planetary surfaces from orbital data alone.
Bleacher, J. E.↗
Managing Science Operations during Planetary Surface Operations at Long Light Delay-Time Targets: The 2011 Desert RATS Test
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 in the San Francisco Volcanic Field. Conducted since 1997, these activities are designed to exercise planetary surface hardware and operations in conditions where multi-day tests are achievable. Desert RATS 2011 Science Operations Test simulated the management of crewed science operations at targets that were beyond the light delay time experienced during Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) and lunar surface missions, such as a mission to a Near-Earth Object (NEO) or the martian surface. Operations at targets at these distances are likely to be the norm as humans move out of the Earth-Moon system. Operating at these distances places significant challenges on mission operations, as the imposed light-delay time makes normal, two-way conversations extremely inefficient. Consequently, the operations approach for space missions that has been exercised during the first half-century of human space operations is no longer viable, and new approaches must be devised.
Eppler, D. B.↗
The 2010 Desert Rats Science Operations Test: Outcomes and Lessons Learned
The Desert RATS 2010 Team tested a variety of science operations management techniques, applying experience gained during the manned Apollo missions and the robotic Mars missions. This test assessed integrated science operations management of human planetary exploration using real-time, tactical science operations to oversee daily crew science activities, and a night shift strategic science operations team to conduct strategic level assessment of science data and daily traverse results. In addition, an attempt was made to collect numerical metric data on the outcome of the science operations to assist test evaluation. The two most important outcomes were 1) the production of significant (almost overwhelming) volume of data produced during daily traverse operations with two rovers, advanced imaging systems and well trained, scientifically proficient crew-members, and 2) the degree to which the tactical team s interaction with the surface crew enhanced science return. This interaction depended on continuous real-time voice and data communications, and the quality of science return from any human planetary exploration mission will be based strongly on the aggregate interaction between a well trained surface crew and a dedicated science operations support team using voice and imaging data from a planet s surface. In addition, the scientific insight developed by both the science operations team and the crews could not be measurable by simple numerical quantities, and its value will be missed by a purely metric-based evaluation of test outcome. In particular, failure to recognize the critical importance of this qualitative type interaction may result in mission architecture choices that will reduce science return.
Eppler, D. B.↗
Science Operations Development for Field Analogs: Lessons Learned from the 2010 Desert RATS Test
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. Conducted since 1997, these activities are designed to exercise planetary surface hardware and operations in conditions where long-distance, multi-day roving is achievable. Such activities not only test vehicle subsystems through extended rough-terrain driving, they also stress communications and operations systems and allow testing of science operations approaches to advance human and robotic surface capabilities.
Eppler, D. B.↗
Comparing Apollo and Mars Exploration Rover (MER) Operations Paradigms for Human Exploration During NASA Desert-Rats Science Operations
NASA's Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS) field test is one of several analog tests that NASA conducts each year to combine operations development, technology advances and science under planetary surface conditions. The D-RATS focus is testing preliminary operational concepts for extravehicular activity (EVA) systems in the field using simulated surface operations and EVA hardware and procedures. For 2010 hardware included the Space Exploration Vehicles, Habitat Demonstration Units, Tri-ATHLETE, and a suite of new geology sample collection tools, including a self-contained GeoLab glove box for conducting in-field analysis of various collected rock samples. The D-RATS activities develop technical skills and experience for the mission planners, engineers, scientists, technicians, and astronauts responsible for realizing the goals of exploring planetary surfaces.
Yingst, R. A.↗
Science Operations for the 2008 NASA Lunar Analog Field Test at Black Point Lava Flow, Arizona
Surface science operations on the Moon will require merging lessons from Apollo with new operation concepts that exploit the Constellation Lunar Architecture. Prototypes of lunar vehicles and robots are already under development and will change the way we conduct science operations compared to Apollo. To prepare for future surface operations on the Moon, NASA, along with several supporting agencies and institutions, conducted a high-fidelity lunar mission simulation with prototypes of the small pressurized rover (SPR) and unpressurized rover (UPR) (Fig. 1) at Black Point lava flow (Fig. 2), 40 km north of Flagstaff, Arizona from Oct. 19-31, 2008. This field test was primarily intended to evaluate and compare the surface mobility afforded by unpressurized and pressurized rovers, the latter critically depending on the innovative suit-port concept for efficient egress and ingress. The UPR vehicle transports two astronauts who remain in their EVA suits at all times, whereas the SPR concept enables astronauts to remain in a pressurized shirt-sleeve environment during long translations and while making contextual observations and enables rapid (less than or equal to 10 minutes) transfer to and from the surface via suit-ports. A team of field geologists provided realistic science scenarios for the simulations and served as crew members, field observers, and operators of a science backroom. Here, we present a description of the science team s operations and lessons learned.
Garry W. D.↗
Science Support Room Operations During Desert RATS 2009
NASA s Desert Research and Technology Studies (D-RATS) field test is a demonstration that combines operations development, technology advances and science in analog planetary surface conditions. The focus is testing preliminary operational concepts for extravehicular activity (EVA) systems by providing hands-on experience with simulated surface operations and EVA hardware and procedures. The DRATS activities also develop technical skills and experience for the engineers, scientists, technicians, and astronauts responsible for realizing the goals of the Lunar Surface Systems Program. The 2009 test is the twelfth for the D-RATS team.
Lofgren, Gary E.↗
Scientific Goals and Objectives for the Human Exploration of Mars: 1. Biology and Atmosphere/Climate
To prepare for the exploration of Mars by humans, as outlined in the new national vision for Space Exploration (VSE), the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG), chartered by NASA's Mars Exploration Program (MEP), formed a Human Exploration of Mars Science Analysis Group (HEM-SAG), in March 2007. HEM-SAG was chartered to develop the scientific goals and objectives for the human exploration of Mars based on the Mars Scientific Goals, Objectives, Investigations, and Priorities.1 The HEM-SAG is one of several humans to Mars scientific, engineering and mission architecture studies chartered in 2007 to support NASA s plans for the human exploration of Mars. The HEM-SAG is composed of about 30 Mars scientists representing the disciplines of Mars biology, climate/atmosphere, geology and geophysics from the U.S., Canada, England, France, Italy and Spain. MEPAG selected Drs. James B. Garvin (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center) and Joel S. Levine (NASA Langley Research Center) to serve as HEMSAG co-chairs. The HEM-SAG team conducted 20 telecons and convened three face-to-face meetings from March through October 2007. The management of MEP and MEPAG were briefed on the HEM-SAG interim findings in May. The HEM-SAG final report was presented on-line to the full MEPAG membership and was presented at the MEPAG meeting on February 20-21, 2008. This presentation will outline the HEM-SAG biology and climate/atmosphere goals and objectives. A companion paper will outline the HEM-SAG geology and geophysics goals and objectives.
Levine, Joel S.↗