Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “advanced autonomy”

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.

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

402 records · Page 23
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Autonomous Navigation, Guidance, and Control Software in a Low SWaP Box

Onboard autonomy is a necessity for responsive space operations. Autonomous navigation, guidance, and control (NGC) enables space missions to reduce their dependence on high demand ground assets and costly ground personnel. It also allows for in-situ decision making and higher return on mission data. A flight software and hardware system providing this capability, called “autoNGC,” is currently being developed at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center for infusion into multiple future missions. The autoNGC flight software is built on the plug-and-play architecture of the core Flight System (cFS) consisting of the standard cFS apps and newly developed autoNGC interface apps and libraries. The various apps cooperate through communication over the message-based software bus. With the plug-and-play architecture of autoNGC, cFS apps can easily be added and replaced to meet the needs of different missions, even after launch. The first flight software release of autoNGC is targeted for Summer 2024 to provide autonomous navigation at the Moon and beyond. It can perform sensor fusion of multiple measurement types including pseudo-range from a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver (including weak signal), 1-way and 2-way range and Doppler from ground stations (i.e., direct to Earth (DTE)), bearing and range from optical camera images, and accelerometer data. Accurate onboard navigation and timing is obtained through the Goddard Enhanced Onboard Navigation System (GEONS) software library which fuses different measurement types through an extended Kalman filter (EKF) framework. Optical measurements that are ingested in GEONS are first extracted from optical images by the cFS Goddard Image Analysis and Navigation Tool (cGIANT) app. If the imaged body is far enough away that it appears as a pixel or cluster of pixels, then bearing angles to the body centroid can be provided. If the body is close enough and the shape is known coarsely, then bearing angles and range to the body centroid can be derived from the limb. Bearing angles to individual surface features can also be extracted (i.e., terrain relative navigation (TRN)). Onboard guidance and control capabilities are being developed for a future release to perform autonomous station-keeping and trajectory correction maneuvers in multiple orbital regimes. Capabilities to enable distributed systems missions and constellations, such as crosslink measurements, and onboard time management are being developed as well. The first hardware implementation of autoNGC is a minimal size, weight, and power (SWaP) design allowing for inclusion into CubeSats and SmallSat-size buses. Advancements in miniaturized space processors, such as the SpaceCube 3.0 Mini and the SpaceCube Mini-Z are utilized for low SWaP while maintaining a high level of performance. The current enclosure design is 12 cm x 17 cm x 13.5 cm. The box mass is expected to be less than 2 kg, and the nominal power is 21 W. In order to accommodate a wide range of missions, the hardware interfaces are designed for flexibility with a variety of sensor inputs. Through comprehensive testing in the software-in-the-loop, processor-in-the-loop, and hardware-in-the-loop test beds that are concurrently being developed, autoNGC is expected to achieve TRL 6 by late 2024.

Sun Hur-Diaz↗
NASA NTRS2016

Utilizing the ISS Mission as a Testbed to Develop Cognitive Communications Systems

The ISS provides an excellent opportunity for pioneering artificial intelligence software to meet the challenges of real-time communications (comm) link management. This opportunity empowers the ISS Program to forge a testbed for developing cognitive communications systems for the benefit of the ISS mission, manned Low Earth Orbit (LEO) science programs and future planetary exploration programs. In November, 1998, the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) started the ISS Antenna Manager (IAM) project to develop a single processor supporting multiple comm satellite tracking for two different antenna systems. Further, the processor was developed to be highly adaptable as it supported the ISS mission through all assembly stages. The ISS mission mandated communications specialists with complete knowledge of when the ISS was about to lose or gain comm link service. The current specialty mandated cognizance of large sun-tracking solar arrays and thermal management panels in addition to the highly-dynamic satellite service schedules and rise/set tables. This mission requirement makes the ISS the ideal communications management analogue for future LEO space station and long-duration planetary exploration missions. Future missions, with their precision-pointed, dynamic, laser-based comm links, require complete autonomy for managing high-data rate communications systems. Development of cognitive communications management systems that permit any crew member or payload science specialist, regardless of experience level, to control communications is one of the greater benefits the ISS can offer new space exploration programs. The IAM project met a new mission requirement never previously levied against US space-born communications systems management: process and display the orientation of large solar arrays and thermal control panels based on real-time joint angle telemetry. However, IAM leaves the actual communications availability assessment to human judgment, which introduces unwanted variability because each specialist has a different core of experience with comm link performance. Because the ISS utilizes two different frequency bands, dynamic structure can be occasionally translucent at one frequency while it can completely interdict service at the other frequency. The impact of articulating structure on the comm link can depend on its orientation at the time it impinges on the link. It can become easy for a human specialist to cross-associate experience at one frequency with experience at the other frequency. Additionally, the specialist's experience is incremental, occurring one nine-hour shift at a time. Only the IAM processor experiences the complete 24x7x365 communications link performance for both communications links but, it has no "learning capability." If the IAM processor could be endowed with a cognitive ability to remember past structure-induced comm link outages, based on its knowledge of the ISS position, attitude, communications gear, array joint angles and tracking accuracy, it could convey such experience to the human operator. It could also use its learned communications link behaviors to accurately convey the availability of future communications sessions. Further, the tool could remember how accurately or inaccurately it predicted availability and correct future predictions based on past performance. The IAM tool could learn frequency-specific impacts due to spacecraft structures and pass that information along as "experience." Such development would provide a single artificial intelligence processor that could provide two different experience bases. If it also "knew" the satellite service schedule, it could distinguish structure blockage from schedule or planet blockage and then quickly switch to another satellite. Alternatively, just as a human operator could judge, a cognizant comm system based on the IAM model could "know" that the blockage is not going to last very long and continue tracking a comm satellite, waiting for it to track away from structure. Ultimately, once this capability was fully developed and tested in the Mission Control Center, it could be transferred on-orbit to support development of operations concepts that include more advanced cognitive communications systems. Future applications of this capability are easily foreseen because even more dynamic satellite constellations with more nodes and greater capability are coming. Currently, the ISS fully employs a 300 million bit-per-second (Mbps) return link for harvesting payload science. In the coming eighteen months, it will step up to 600 Mbps. Already there is talk of a 1.2 billion bit-per-second (Gbps) upgrade for the ISS and laser comm links have already been tested from the ISS. Every data rate upgrade mandates more complicated and sensitive communications equipment which implies greater expertise invested in the human operator. Future on-orbit cognizant comm systems will be needed to meet greater performance demands aboard larger, far more complicated spacecraft. In the LEO environment, the old-style one-satellite-per-spacecraft operations concept will give way to a new concept of a single customer spacecraft simultaneously using multiple comm satellites. Much more highly-dynamic manned LEO missions with decades of crew members potentially increase the demand for communications link performance. A cognizant on-board communications system will meet advanced communications demands from future LEO missions and future planetary missions. The ISS has fledgling components of future exploration programs, both LEO and planetary. Further, the Flight Operations Directorate, through the IAM project, has already begun to develop a communications management system that attempts to solve advanced problems ideally represented by dynamic structure impacting scheduled satellite service. With an earnest project to integrate artificial intelligence into the IAM processor, the ISS Program could develop a cognizant communications system that could be adapted and transferred to future on-orbit avionics designs.

Jackson, Dan↗
NASA NTRS2016

Utilizing the ISS Mission as a Testbed to Develop Cognitive Communications Systems

The ISS provides an excellent opportunity for pioneering artificial intelligence software to meet the challenges of real-time communications (comm) link management. This opportunity empowers the ISS Program to forge a testbed for developing cognitive communications systems for the benefit of the ISS mission, manned Low Earth Orbit (LEO) science programs and future planetary exploration programs. In November, 1998, the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) started the ISS Antenna Manager (IAM) project to develop a single processor supporting multiple comm satellite tracking for two different antenna systems. Further, the processor was developed to be highly adaptable as it supported the ISS mission through all assembly stages. The ISS mission mandated communications specialists with complete knowledge of when the ISS was about to lose or gain comm link service. The current specialty mandated cognizance of large sun-tracking solar arrays and thermal management panels in addition to the highly-dynamic satellite service schedules and rise/set tables. This mission requirement makes the ISS the ideal communications management analogue for future LEO space station and long-duration planetary exploration missions. Future missions, with their precision-pointed, dynamic, laser-based comm links, require complete autonomy for managing high-data rate communications systems. Development of cognitive communications management systems that permit any crew member or payload science specialist, regardless of experience level, to control communications is one of the greater benefits the ISS can offer new space exploration programs. The IAM project met a new mission requirement never previously levied against US space-born communications systems management: process and display the orientation of large solar arrays and thermal control panels based on real-time joint angle telemetry. However, IAM leaves the actual communications availability assessment to human judgement, which introduces unwanted variability because each specialist has a different core of experience with comm link performance. Because the ISS utilizes two different frequency bands, dynamic structure can be occasionally translucent at one frequency while it can completely interdict service at the other frequency. The impact of articulating structure on the comm link can depend on its orientation at the time it impinges on the link. It can become easy for a human specialist to cross-associate experience at one frequency with experience at the other frequency. Additionally, the specialist's experience is incremental, occurring one nine-hour shift at a time. Only the IAM processor experiences the complete 24x7x365 communications link performance for both communications links but, it has no "learning capability." If the IAM processor could be endowed with a cognitive ability to remember past structure-induced comm link outages, based on its knowledge of the ISS position, attitude, communications gear, array joint angles and tracking accuracy, it could convey such experience to the human operator. It could also use its learned communications link behaviors to accurately convey the availability of future communications sessions. Further, the tool could remember how accurately or inaccurately it predicted availability and correct future predictions based on past performance. The IAM tool could learn frequency-specific impacts due to spacecraft structures and pass that information along as "experience." Such development would provide a single artificial intelligence processor that could provide two different experience bases. If it also "knew" the satellite service schedule, it could distinguish structure blockage from schedule or planet blockage and then quickly switch to another satellite. Alternatively, just as a human operator could judge, a cognizant comm system based on the IAM model could "know" that the blockage is not going to last very long and continue tracking a comm satellite, waiting for it to track away from structure. Ultimately, once this capability was fully developed and tested in the Mission Control Center, it could be transferred on-orbit to support development of operations concepts that include more advanced cognitive communications systems. Future applications of this capability are easily foreseen because even more dynamic satellite constellations with more nodes and greater capability are coming. Currently, the ISS fully employs its high-data-rate return link for harvesting payload science. In the coming months, it will double that data rate and is forecast to fully utilize that capability. Already there is talk of an upgrade that quadruples the current data rate allocated to ISS payload science before the end of its mission and laser comm links have already been tested from the ISS. Every data rate upgrade mandates more complicated and sensitive communications equipment which implies greater expertise invested in the human operator. Future on-orbit cognizant comm systems will be needed to meet greater performance demands aboard larger, far more complicated spacecraft. In the LEO environment, the old-style one-satellite-per-spacecraft operations concept will give way to a new concept of a single customer spacecraft simultaneously using multiple comm satellites. Much more highly-dynamic manned LEO missions with decades of crew members potentially increase the demand for communications link performance. A cognizant on-board communications system will meet advanced communications demands from future LEO missions and future planetary missions. The ISS has fledgling components of future exploration programs, both LEO and planetary. Further, the Flight Operations Directorate, through the IAM project, has already begun to develop a communications management system that attempts to solve advanced problems ideally represented by dynamic structure impacting scheduled satellite service. With an earnest project to integrate artificial intelligence into the IAM processor, the ISS Program could develop a cognizant communications system that could be adapted and transferred to future on-orbit avionics designs.

Jackson, Dan↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Improving Efficacy and Safety of Pharmacological Treatment Through Precision Health and Pharmacogenomics

INTRODUCTION: Future spaceflight will require increased crew medical autonomy as exploration class missions expand in duration and distance from Earth, especially for Mars missions. As mission duration increases, it will be essential to have appropriate amounts of effective medication to ensure the maintenance of crew health and performance. Conversely, mass and volume constraints will become more severe as future spaceflight expands beyond low Earth orbit, where resupply is difficult or becomes impossible. These constraints thus convey an urgency to tailor medications for individual crewmembers and further examine appropriate dosing regimens. BACKGROUND: Precision Health is an exciting area of medicine focused on maintaining an individual’s health and performance through in-depth understanding of an individual’s unique clinical and environmental history, genetic makeup, and molecular profiles. This approach can be adapted to better predict, monitor, and address physiological responses to the spaceflight environment. A subset of this field is pharmacogenomics (PGX), the study of how the expressed genome impacts drug responses with the goal of prescribing the right dose of the right drug at the right time. Specifically, PGX testing provides valuable information on an individual’s precise allelic variations to guide physicians in making informed decisions on drug choice and dosing to avoid adverse events and maximize efficacy. The study goal was to identify which current space pharmacy drugs could be evaluated using PGX testing and to understand the potential impact on the health and wellness of the astronaut population. Additionally, we sought to evaluate clinically available FDA-approved PGX testing solutions to better understand its applicability. METHODS: A complete list of drugs on the ISS was analyzed for risk and likelihood of drug failure and PGX actionability. This analysis encompassed both astronauts’ personal medications, including supplements and over the counter drugs (n=151) contained in the ISS medical accessory kit (IMAK), and ISS MedKit formulary medications (n=95). Duplicate medications and different formulations were removed, which resulted in a total of 157 drugs used in the subsequent analysis. A 5x5 risk assessment table was produced by examining the likelihood of drug failure compared to the consequence of drug failure (LxC). Likelihood of individual drug failure was defined by whether existing processes are sufficient to prevent ineffective treatment or impactful side effect events, as ranked from 1 (very low, can easily be prevented) to 5 (very high, cannot be prevented) during a Mars mission. In contrast, the consequence of drug failure was defined by impact to safety, schedule, cost, or technical criteria and ranked from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). An assessment of PGX reference laboratories is currently underway to evaluate sample requirements, benefit analysis (cost vs. utility of allele variant analysis), relevance to inflight medication usage, quality of reporting in enabling clinical application, and ease of integration into electronic medical records. RESULTS: Risk assessments (LxC 5x5 table) indicated 128 medications were in the green zone where risk is acceptable, with the remaining 29 of the medications in the yellow or red zone driven predominantly due to drug failure or safety concerns. We found that current PGX testing results could impact 21% of the total medications in the ISS MedKit and IMAK; of these, 9 medications currently have direct clinically actionable guidance available. Results of the clinical PGX solution evaluations as related to these medications will be presented. CONCLUSION: PGX testing has demonstrated clear benefits in terrestrial medicine and clinical environments for the selection of proper medications, avoiding adverse drug reactions, and maximizing drug efficacy. We propose that similar benefits would be bestowed on the astronaut and commercial spaceflight passenger population by performing preemptive preflight PGX testing to reduce risk of mission failure due to ineffective or toxic medications, improve drug efficacy, and further open the door to countermeasure research. For example, PGX results could allow tailoring of specific medications at optimal doses more precisely to each individual astronaut, particularly in areas of space motion sickness, sleep aids, and analgesics. An additional benefit is that PGX results could provide information for better planning of the components of a space pharmacy for deep space missions to be more effective and efficient in the utilization of limited pharmaceutical resources. Finally, while PGX testing of the astronaut corps is not currently conducted, this approach could provide immediate impact in support of mission success by reducing risks, optimizing astronaut performance, and providing valuable insights into long-term astronaut health. Such advancements in clinical decision making are important next steps in building dynamic individual risk profiles for astronauts, increasing selection of the best treatment choice, and providing tailored countermeasures for individual crewmembers.

Pharmacogenomics↗
NASA NTRS2012

Science Benefits of Onboard Spacecraft Navigation

Primitive bodies (asteroids and comets), which have remained relatively unaltered since their formation, are important targets for scientific missions that seek to understand the evolution of the solar system. Often the first step is to fly by these bodies with robotic spacecraft. The key to maximizing data returns from these flybys is to determine the spacecraft trajectory relative to the target body-in short, navigate the spacecraft- with sufficient accuracy so that the target is guaranteed to be in the instruments' field of view. The most powerful navigation data in these scenarios are images taken by the spacecraft of the target against a known star field (onboard astrometry). Traditionally, the relative trajectory of the spacecraft must be estimated hours to days in advance using images collected by the spacecraft. This is because of (1)!the long round-trip light times between the spacecraft and the Earth and (2)!the time needed to downlink and process navigation data on the ground, make decisions based on the result, and build and uplink instrument pointing sequences from the results. The light time and processing time compromise navigation accuracy considerably, because there is not enough time to use more accurate data collected closer to the target-such data are more accurate because the angular capability of the onboard astrometry is essentially constant as the distance to the target decreases, resulting in better "plane-of- sky" knowledge of the target. Excellent examples of these timing limitations are high-speed comet encounters. Comets are difficult to observe up close; their orbits often limit scientists to brief, rapid flybys, and their coma further restricts viewers from seeing the nucleus in any detail, unless they can view the nucleus at close range. Comet nuclei details are typically discernable for much shorter durations than the roundtrip light time to Earth, so robotic spacecraft must be able to perform onboard navigation. This onboard navigation can be accomplished through a self- contained system that by eliminating light time restrictions dramatically improves the relative trajectory knowledge and control and subsequently increases the amount of quality data collected. Flybys are one-time events, so the system's underlying algorithms and software must be extremely robust. The autonomous software must also be able to cope with the unknown size, shape, and orientation of the previously unseen comet nucleus. Furthermore, algorithms must be reliable in the presence of imperfections and/or damage to onboard cameras accrued after many years of deep-space operations. The AutoNav operational flight software packages, developed by scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) under contract with NASA, meet all these requirements. They have been directly responsible for the successful encounters on all of NASA's close-up comet-imaging missions (see Figure !1). AutoNav is the only system to date that has autonomously tracked comet nuclei during encounters and performed autonomous interplanetary navigation. AutoNav has enabled five cometary flyby missions (Table!1) residing on four NASA spacecraft provided by three different spacecraft builders. Using this software, missions were able to process a combined total of nearly 1000 images previously unseen by humans. By eliminating the need to navigate spacecraft from Earth, the accuracy gained by AutoNav during flybys compared to ground-based navigation is about 1!order of magnitude in targeting and 2!orders of magnitude in time of flight. These benefits ensure that pointing errors do not compromise data gathered during flybys. In addition, these benefits can be applied to flybys of other solar system objects, flybys at much slower relative velocities, mosaic imaging campaigns, and other proximity activities (e.g., orbiting, hovering, and descent/ascent).

Autonomy↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Uncrewed Lunar Surface Operations and Support Activities

Sustained human presence on the surface of the Moon and future missions to Mars require increased independence from surface crews and Earth-based mission control to operate efficiently, safely, and reliably. The time for surface crews to perform tasks will be limited. Extravehicular activities by surface personnel are burdensome and time-consuming, even when a continuous human presence on the surface occurs. Identifying and balancing human/automation roles and tasks and infusing automation and autonomy practices early in a system’s lifecycle will be essential to achieve mission objectives. Among these objectives are attaining a sustained human presence, improving performance and mission effectiveness, reducing operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and ensuring operations that are robust to communication delays. To achieve these objectives, an operational shift toward increased automation and autonomy with less reliance on humans is needed. Uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities occur when surface crews are not present or are independent of surface crew timeline activities requiring no surface crew oversight or intervention. These uncrewed surface opportunities can also be planned to minimize crew workload that avoids routine maintenance and support tasks, thus maximizing crew exploration time. Uncrewed preparations such as staging and prepositioning equipment and materials before the crew arrives could improve crew task efficiency. Additional opportunities exist to conduct uncrewed science, exploration, and utilization. Uncrewed surface architecture functions can include science and exploration; habitation; launch and landing support; surface communication and navigation; surface power generation and distribution; human surface mobility; lifting, handling, manipulating; excavation, construction, and site preparation; logistics management; maintenance and repair; surface resource utilization; integrated site operations and shared support services (e.g., site scheduling/prioritization, dust mitigation/contamination control, and surface safety). Early robotic lunar surface campaigns will provide information on the availability of resources, such as oxygen and water, and demonstrate surface-based technologies. After the Artemis III human lunar return mission, a series of landers will deliver surface systems, cargo, supplies, science packages, spare parts, and commodities. A balance of crewed and uncrewed surface operations will enable a sustained lunar surface presence at the South Pole of the Moon at a site that will be known as the Artemis Base Camp (ABC). It is envisioned that base camp operations on and around the Moon will then help prepare for the mission durations and activities needed to support the first human mission to Mars. Before long-duration crew missions to the base camp can occur, the necessary surface infrastructure will be pre-deployed and verified operational. Surface assets will be teleoperated and remotely managed from Earth. Additionally, robotic and short-duration crewed missions to the ABC will ensure the site’s merit to achieve long-term science objectives, availability of usable resources, and that terrain, seasonal variations, and illumination conditions are acceptable. ABC will consist of different areas where specific functions and services are rendered, including: • Launch and Landing Area • Habitation Area • Power Production Area • Resource Areas Launch and Landing Area—The launch and landing area will support associated functions for the arrival and departure of vehicles, such as crewed landing and ascent and uncrewed cargo deliveries and offloading. It will evolve from an unimproved site at the beginning of the exploration campaign to a more sustainable landing and launch area that can support repeated arrivals and departures. Initial uncrewed Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) surface operations may include emplacement of navigation beacons and communication equipment, real-time video and photography of landing/liftoff events, and element repositioning, such as portable utility power (PUP) (applicable for other landed assets at other areas). Site preparations, such as surface leveling, soil compaction, and berm/path construction, may be needed for a more sustainable launch and landing area capable of accommodating vehicles that are increasingly more reusable and reduce the effects of plume surface interactions and ejecta impacts on nearby surface assets. During the ABC missions, cargo and logistics will be delivered to the lunar surface via robotic cargo landers before the crew arrives. These shipments, which can arrive in pressurized logistics carriers, will deliver the logistics necessary to support a crewed mission and include items such as food, water, equipment spares, etc. Providing the capability to retrieve, offload, and transport the logistics closer to the ABC site before the arrival of the crew will increase the overall efficiency of crew operations once they arrive. In the sustained phase of exploration, other supporting services may be needed, such as lander propellant servicing, surface power services, commodity refreshes, and additional inspection, maintenance, and repair capabilities, to sustain a cadence of extended personnel stays and cargo arrivals and departures. Habitation Area—Uncrewed support to surface habitation could involve supporting activation and pre-entry operations of the habitat while the crew is in orbit at the Gateway outpost preparing for a surface landing. Surface Habitat (SH) uncrewed operations may include bringing the cabin environment to a habitable temperature and air mix and activating other critical crew support systems. Potential crop production uncrewed tasks in the SH could also include autonomous watering and tending. Additionally, when the crew departs, the SH enters dormancy for the long period of uncrewed operation. A logistical staging area could also be collocated near the SH. If so, staging operations for crew supplies, waste re-location, and recycling operations may be opportunities for uncrewed operations. Power Production Area—The Fission Surface Power (FSP) element and its supporting distribution equipment provide power to surface elements as needed across the ABC to supplement day-to-day operations and survive lunar nights. Uncrewed support of this power system includes any initial LTV-assisted deployments of cables and other distributed equipment, associated electrical connections, and system testing and activation operations. Robotically performing some inspections, maintenance, or repair tasks on the power distribution equipment could reduce the surface crew workload. Resource Area— Uncrewed resource prospecting, mapping, and characterizing possible resource sites is likely to be time-consuming and represents an opportunity for uncrewed operations between crewed missions. Uncrewed mobile equipment operations will be needed in the extreme environments of permanently shadowed locations where resource extractions occur. As In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) pilot plant operations begin, uncrewed surface support activities with available mobile and portable assets (LTV, PUP, etc.) will better support these operations. Any produced commodities can be stored at a centralized storage location for future use. Also associated with these operations is the use of mobile robotic excavators for resource acquisition and robotic/autonomous regolith processing. The waste tailings generated during excavation and regolith processing would also need to be transported and deposited at a dedicated location. Surface assets will continue operating between crew visits to maintain surface capabilities, conduct lunar surface science, technology demonstrations, and public outreach opportunities. Additionally, certain sustaining tasks that would consume valuable crew time could be performed before crew arrival, or after their departure. This capability may offer more affordable options to construct, activate, test, and maintain a broad set of surface assets. Telerobotically operated human surface mobility systems, such as the LTV and Pressurized Rover (PR), can be utilized for various tasks. Surface environmental conditions pose a distinct challenge for all these activities. Surface illumination and localized shadows are one such factor. Night-survival operations could consist of thermal management, battery pre-charging, and load shedding. Some surface systems may hibernate through the night and then awake and continue nominal operations. Uncrewed mobile assets may use a more adaptive approach to optimize their power and operations; one method is to follow the sunlight. Night-survival operations may be initiated remotely by teleoperation, automated, or accomplished by supervised autonomous operation. The ability to pre-deploy and control remote assets in orbit or on Mars before the arrival of the mission crew is a key capability that can be simulated on the moon. The base camp provides a venue where these advanced operational concepts, technologies, and autonomous methods and techniques, including the incorporation of time delays to simulate Earth-Mars latency can be replicated to help buy down future Mars mission risks. This paper will examine the evolution of uncrewed lunar surface operations and support activities. It will also discuss the lunar surface environmental conditions (thermal, lighting, terrain, topography, communications) along with the challenges they pose on uncrewed surface operations, and the performance of these activities with limited to minimal human interaction and/or teleoperation. Since lunar missions include Mars mission analogs, such investigation provides the framework for future uncrewed Mars mission support.

Mark E Lewis↗