NASA NTRS2013
In an era of shrinking buying power and reduced flight opportunities, NASA must extract the greatest possible value from all sources of insight into the future of human space exploration. Antarctica is one such source. The history of Antarctic exploration has many political and technical parallels with the development of space, and Antarctica's remoteness and harsh climate make it an excellent proxy for space (e.g., [1,2]). Links between exploration of space and of the Antarctic date back to the International Geophysical Year of 1957-1958, which saw both the launch of Sputnik 1 and the establishment of a station at the South Pole. The Antarctic Search for Meteorites (ANSMET) is an annual expedition to the south polar plateau to collect meteorites. Although its intent is not to simulate a space mission, the handful of astronauts who have participated in ANSMET agree that it is very similar to a long-duration space flight. Independently, NASA and other space agencies have simulated deep space exploration missions in "analog" activities at remote field sites on Earth (e.g., [3]). These include NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) [4,5], Desert Research And Technology Studies (Desert RATS) [6,7], and the Pavilion Lake Research Project (PLRP or simply Pavilion Lake) [8]. This report focuses on NEEMO, Desert RATS, and PLRP because of the author's firsthand experience with them. Other noteworthy analogs, such as the arctic Haughton Mars Project and the European Space Agency's underground Cooperative Adventure for Valuing and Exercising human behavior and performance Skills (CAVES), are not treated here. NASA analogs often include fully staffed control centers, astronauts serving as crew, and realistic mission timelines lasting one to two weeks. Analogs have provided key insights into system architectures and operational concepts for the future human exploration of deep space. They have pioneered techniques for human communication with significant speed-of-light delays, for conducting spacewalks on natural objects with negligible surface gravity, and for empowering exploration crews to work with reduced dependence on a ground control center. They have field-tested dozens of emerging technologies including spacewalking tools and full-scale prototype vehicles and habitats. They have provided valuable experience for astronauts preparing for their first space flight, and for flown crewmembers who will take command roles on later flights. Some analogs, especially PLRP, have connected observers in the field with science teams in remotely located control centers to produce high-quality, publishable scientific results. The analogs have accomplished all of this at a tiny fraction of the cost of an actual space flight. This report treats ANSMET as space flight analog. The chapter following this introduction describes ANSMET in depth. The report then presents data on logistics and crew considerations that may be useful for developers of future human space exploration missions. It offers detailed comparisons between ANSMET and past, present, and future space flights on the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station (ISS), and a proposed Mars mission. Those comparisons are intended to complement the work of Eppler [2], who compares ANSMET to the Apollo moon flights. This report also compares ANSMET with the Desert RATS, NEEMO, and PLRP analogs. It then presents observations and makes recommendations related to ANSMET's value as a simulated space mission. The report ends with a short conclusion. The remainder of this introductory chapter provides background material to help readers interpret the rest of the report. It gives brief overviews of Space Shuttle and ISS missions along with information on a notional future human flight to Mars. It also presents the general features of three of NASA's space flight "analog" projects. With those points of reference in place, the chapter concludes with an overview of ANSMET.