SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “roving vehicle”

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 127 records · Page 7

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1973

Human factor roles in design of teleoperator systems

Teleoperator systems are considered, giving attention to types of teleoperators, a manned space vehicle attached manipulator, a free-flying teleoperator, a surface exploration roving vehicle, the human factors role in total system design, the manipulator system, the sensor system, the communication system, the control system, and the mobility system. The role of human factors in the development of teleoperator systems is also discussed, taking into account visual systems, an operator control station, and the manipulators.

Janow, C.↗

NASA NTRS1973

A study of remote guidance and control for planetary surface vehicles.

Description of tests that were originally conducted with the aim of extending the operational lifetime of the lunar roving vehicle beyond the period of the astronauts stay on the moon. The results obtained include the findings that a vehicle with six independently driven wheels appears to be practical, and that with proper drive motor sizing this configuration could provide redundancy as well as the ability to negotiate some crevasses and rocks.

Mastin, W. C.↗

NASA NTRS1974

Martian and lunar science with remotely-controlled long-range surface vehicles

Science objectives are outlined for long surface traverse missions on Mars and the moon, with remotely-controlled roving vehicles. Series of candidate rover science payloads are proposed, varying in purpose, development needed, cost, and weight (35 to almost 300 kg). A high degree of internal control will be needed on the Mars rover, including the ability to carry out complex science sequences. Decision-making by humans in the Mars mission includes supervisory control of rover operations and selection of features and samples of geological and biological interest. For the lunar mission, less control on the rover and more on earth is appropriate. Operational problem areas for Mars include control, communications, data storage, night operations, and the mission operations system. For the moon, science data storage on the rover would be unnecessary and control much simpler.

Jaffe, L. D.↗

NASA NTRS1985

A Mars sample return mission using a rover for sample acquisition

Mission and vehicle concepts are discussed for obtaining surface and subsurface samples of Mars, acquired by a roving vehicle, and returning those samples to earth for detailed analyses in scientific laboratories. Mission options that were traded off in order to arrive at a baseline mission considered most worthy of further study comprised the following: (1) direct entry vs entry out of Mars orbit; (2) direct return from the Mars surface vs rendezvous in Mars orbit and return to earth from there; and (3) propulsive orbit injection and aeroballistic entry (similar to Viking) vs aerocapture into Mars orbit and aeromaneuvering entry. After a comparison of relative merits - based primarily on mass and cost estimates and secondarily on configurational constraints - a baseline mission was selected: out-of-orbit entry, return after Mars orbit rendezvous, and aerocapture/aeromaneuvering. Trajectory design is based on the 1996 launch opportunity. Launch mass requirements for eight mission options, a mission and vehicle description for the baseline mission, and the outline of a mission sequence of events are presented.

De Vries, J. P.↗

NASA NTRS1962

An Investigation of the Effects of the Time Lag Due to Long Transmission Distance upon Remote Control. Phase II - Vehicle Experiments. Phase III - Conclusions

An experimental program is undertaken to define the effects upon remote control of long transmission delays. Investigation centers around remote control of a ground vehicle, which is considered to be a representative remote control task. A series of pursuit tracking tests is performed with transport lags ranging from 0 to 6 seconds between the control and the controlled quantity. Various target speeds are tracked with both velocity and acceleration controls. Two types of tracking are performed in an attempt to bracket the actual vehicle situation. In the first the operator attempts to follow the target with his controlled quantity in real time, using the delayed position and rates as feedback. In the second he attempts to follow the target with the delayed controlled quantity. In addition, tests are performed substituting simple electronic models for the human in an attempt to gain an understanding of human response with time delays in the control loop. A series of tests with an actual vehicle are performed with the intent of relating the tracking tests to the actual situation of interest. Time delays of from 0 to 3 seconds are included in the control loop. Performance is scored at various speeds over both continuous and obstacle courses. Both two and four-wheel steering are investigated. In the experiments the effects of all variables except delay magnitude and target complexity are minimized. Curves are obtained showing performance as a function of time delay and target complexity. These curves are discussed. Correlation of the tracking and vehicle experiments is discussed. Comments are made concerning the design of a minimum control system for a remotely controlled lunar roving vehicle.

REMOTE CONTROL↗

NASA NTRS2011

Charging and Subsequent Dissipation of a Rover Wheel in the Lunar Polar Regions

As a roving vehicle moves along the lunar surface, electric charge will build up through tribo-charging. This charge collected by the roving object will have a dissipative path to either the surface or the ambient plasma, depending upon which path is most conductive. At the lunar terminator region and into nightside regions, the surface is very cold and becomes a very poor conductor. leaving the plasma as the dominant remediating current for dissipation. However, within lunar craters, even plasma currents become substantially reduced which then greatly increases electric 'dissipation times, This work will involve the advancement of the stepping astronaut charge model, by considering the charging and plasma dissipation of a rolling rover wheel, The objective of this work is to determine the nature of charging and discharging for a rover wheel as it rolls along the cold, plasma-starved lunar polar regions. The rotating wheel accumulates charge via contact electrification (tribo-charging) with the lunar regolith. This tribo-charging is dependent on the composition of the objects in contact, with insulators and conductors charging differently. Given the environmental plasma in the region, we then determine the dissipation time for the wheel to bleed off its excess charge into the surrounding plasma. A model of the rover wheel rotating continuously over a surface regolith within a polar crater has been applied. The environmental plasma has been described previously. We define a new tribo-charging term specifically for the rotating system, with charge levels defined as a function of the wheel size, area in contact with the regolith, regolith particle size distribution, as well as the velocity at which the wheel is turning. We recognize that as charged dust accumulates and sticks to the wheel, this behaves effectively as a new current. Hence, the overall charging of the system should no longer vary linearly. and begin to show signs of saturation, We are devising a dust current term to model this charge-limiting effect, and will present the results in discussion.

Jackson, T. L.↗

NASA NTRS2008

Study of the Correlation between the Performances of Lunar Vehicle Wheels Predicted by the Nepean Wheeled Vehicle Performance Model and Test Data

This paper describes the results of a study of the correlation between the performances of wheels for lunar vehicles predicted using the Nepean wheeled vehicle performance model (NWVPM), developed under the auspices of Vehicle Systems Development Corporation, Ottawa, Canada, and the corresponding test data presented in Performance evaluation of wheels for lunar vehicles , Technical Report M-70-2, prepared for George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), USA, by the US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station (WES). The NWVPM was originally developed for design and performance evaluation of terrestrial off-road wheeled vehicles. The purpose of this study is to assess the potential of the NWVPM for evaluating wheel candidates for the new generation of extra-terrestrial vehicles. Two versions of a wire-mesh wheel and a hoop-spring wheel, which were considered as candidates for lunar roving vehicles for the NASA Apollo program in the late 1960s, together with a pneumatic wheel were examined in this study. The tractive performances of these wheels and of a 464 test vehicle with the pneumatic wheels on air-dry sand were predicted using the NWVPM and compared with the corresponding test data obtained under Earth s gravity and previously documented in the above-named report. While test data on wheel or vehicle performances obtained under Earth s gravity may not necessarily be representative of those on extra-terrestrial bodies, because of the differences in gravity and in environmental conditions, such as atmospheric pressure, it is still a valid approach to use test data obtained under Earth s gravity to evaluate the predictive capability of the NWVPM and its potential applications to predicting wheel or wheeled rover performances on extra-terrestrial bodies. Results of this study show that, using the ratio (P20/W) of the drawbar pull to normal load at 20 per cent slip as a performance indicator, there is a reasonable correlation between the predictions and experimental data. This indicates that the NWVPM has the potential as an engineering tool for evaluating wheel candidates for a future generation of extra-terrestrial vehicles, provided that appropriate input data are available.

Wong, J. Y.↗

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 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↗

NASA NTRS1990

Design of a lunar transportation system, volume 2

The Spring 1990 Introduction to Design class was asked to conceptually design second generation lunar vehicles and equipment as a semester design project. A brief summary of four of the final projects, is presented. The designs were to facilitate the transportation of personnel and materials. The eight topics to choose from included flying vehicles, ground based vehicles, robotic arms, and life support systems. A lunar flying vehicle that uses clean propellants for propulsion is examined. A design that will not contribute to the considerable amount of caustic pollution already present in the sparse lunar atmosphere is addressed by way of ballistic flight techniques. A second generation redesign of the current Extra Vehicular Activity (EVA) suit to increase operating time, safety, and efficiency is also addressed. A separate life support system is also designed to be permanently attached to the lunar rover. The two systems would interact through the use of an umbilical cord connection. A ground based vehicle which will travel for greater distances than a 37.5 kilometer radius from a base on the lunar surface was designed. The vehicle is pressurized due to the fact that existing lunar rovers are limited by the EVA suits currently in use. A robotic arm for use at lunar bases or on roving vehicles on the lunar surface was designed. The arm was originally designed as a specimen gathering device, but it can be used for a wide range of tasks through the use of various attachments.

Source record↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

COLDArm Pressure-Sinkage Testing: Implications for Assessing Lunar Trafficability

The ability for regolith to support the movement of vehicles, known as trafficability, is commonly assessed using pressure-sinkage relationships. Trafficability on the lunar surface is controlled by the site-specific physical properties of the regolith and the geometry and mass of the roving vehicle. Lunar regolith pressure-sinkage testing can be performed with standard exploration hardware (e.g., robotic arms with scoops) and will help define exploration routes and hazard zones for rovers and astronauts, as knowledge of the sinkage of a wheel in regolith helps constrain viable operating conditions for rovers. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the necessity of in situ testing and characterization of lunar regolith physical properties for exploration and infrastructure development activities.

Regolith↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

COLDArm Pressure-Sinkage Testing: Implications for Assessing Lunar Trafficability

The ability for regolith to support the movement of vehicles, known as trafficability, is commonly assessed using pressure-sinkage relationships [1]. Trafficability on the lunar surface is controlled by the site-specific physical properties of the regolith and the geometry and mass of the roving vehicle. Lunar regolith pressure-sinkage testing can be performed with standard exploration hardware (e.g., robotic arms with scoops) and will help define exploration routes and hazard zones for rovers and astronauts, as knowledge of the sinkage of a wheel in regolith helps constrain viable operating conditions for rovers. The objective of this study is to demonstrate the necessity of in situ testing and characterization of lunar regolith physical properties for exploration and infrastructure development activities.

Regolith↗

NASA NTRS2001

Mars Rovers: Past, Present, and Future

This viewgraph presentation provides information on the exploration of Mars through the use of rover vehicles. Mars is considered an interesting planet because it is the most like Earth of all known planets, and it may have or have had water on or below its surface. There are many different engineering design challenges for roving vehicles intended for Mars. These include: communications time delay, narrow communications bandwidth, extreme temperatures, rough and rocky terrain, the lack of a global positioning system, and dust. The Sojourner Rover specifications are provided including wheel diameter and instruments. There are prototypes being tested at NASA's Ames Research Center of the next generation Mars rovers.

Bualat, Maria↗

NASA NTRS1977

Design and evaluation of a toroidal wheel for planetary rovers

The inverted toroidal wheel concept was perceived, mathematically quantified, and experimentally verified. The wheel design has a number of important characteristics, namely; (1) the low footprint pressures required for Mars exploration (0.5 to 1.0 psi); (2) high vehicle weight to wheel weight ratios capable of exceeding 10:1; (3) extremely long cyclic endurances tending towards infinite life; and (4) simplicity of design. The concept, in combination with appropriate materials such as titanium or composites, provides a planetary roving vehicle with a very high degree of exploratory mobility, a substantial savings in weight and a high assurity of mission success. Design equations and computation procedures necessary to formulate an inverted wheel are described in detail.

Koskol, J.↗

NASA NTRS1972

Two speed drive system

A two speed drive system for a wheel of a vehicle by which shifting from one speed to the other is accomplished by the inherent mechanism of the wheel is described. A description of the speed shifting operation is provided and diagrams of the mechanism are included. Possible application to lunar roving vehicles is proposed.

Burch, J. L.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Initial Testing Results and Forward Design Considerations for the Tri-Rotor Hand Controller

The Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) is one of the key elements of NASA’s Artemis return to the Moon. As an unpressurized rover, the LTV hand controller must take into account the limitations of the spacesuit worn by the crew as well as lessons learned operating the Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle and preliminary NASA simulations. Because the NASA Ground Test Unit (GTU) design features omnidirectional steering, NASA engineers developed the TriRotor is an innovation to minimize crew fatigue and discomfort. NASA conducted a series of tests, initially with 3D printed mockup controllers, and expanding to a functional prototype used in an LTV video wall simulation. The Tri-Rotor compared favorably with legacy Apollo T-Handles, though numerous test subject comments were collected to improve the controller’s usability. Several options to improve the Tri-Rotor’s usability are also discussed, along with opportunities to test the Tri-Rotor in Virtual Reality, a motion table, and in field analogs.

Hand Controller↗

NASA NTRS2004

Desert Research and Technology Study 2003 Trip Report/ICES Paper

The Advanced Extra-vehicular Activity (EVA) team of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Crew and Thermal Systems Division (CTSD) participated in the Desert Research and Technology Study (RATS) in September 2003, at Meteor Crater, AZ. The Desert RATS is an integrated remote field site te t with team members from several NASA centers (Johnson Space Center; Glenn and Ames Research Centers) and universities (Bowling Green State University, University of Cincinnati, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) participating. Each week of the two-week field test had a primary focus. The primary test hardware for the first week was the I-Gravity Lunar Rover Training Vehicle, or Grover, which was on loan to NASA from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Astrogeology Research Program. The 2003 Grover driving test results serve as a rover performance characterization baseline for the Science, Crew, Operation and Utility Testbed (SCOUT) project team, which will be designing and fabricating a next generation roving vehicle prototype in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004. The second week of testing focused on EVA geologic traverses that utilized a geologic sample field analysis science trailer and also focused on human-robotic interaction between the suited subjects and the EVA Robotic Assistant (ERA). This paper will review the Advanced EVA team's role in the context of the overall Desert RATS, as well as the EVA team results and lessons learned. For information regarding other test participants' results, the authors can refer interested parties to the test reports produced by those Desert RATS teams.

Ross, Amy↗

NASA NTRS1972

Apollo 16 Press Kit

The Apollo 16 spacecraft is scheduled for launch on Apr. 16, 1972 from Complex 39A at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida by the Saturn V launch vehicle. Crewmen are mission commander John W. Young, command module pilot Thomas K. Mattingly II and lunar module pilot Charles M. Duke Jr. Objectives of the mission, to last up to 12 days, as outlined by NASA: to perform selenological inspection, survey and sampling of materials in a preselected region of Descartes using a lunar roving' vehicle; deploy and activate Apollo surface experiments; develop man's capability to work in the lunar environment; obtain photographs of candidate exploration sites; and toconduct inflight experiments and photographic tasks in lunar orbit. Following launch, the spacecraft will reach Earth Parking Orbit and remain in orbit for about two and one-half revolutions prior to Translunar Injection. Next, the Command and Service Module docks with the Lunar Module and the spacecraft "coasts" to the moon. In orbit around the moon, the Command and Service Module/Lunar Module combination will descend to within 50,000 feet of the lunar surface before undocking. The Lunar Module will continue to descend while the Command and Service Module returns to an orbit approximately 60 miles high. Stay time on the lunar surface is scheduled for approximately 73 hours. The ascent stage of the Lunar Module then lifts the astronauts back into lunar orbit where they will dock with the Command/Service Module. The Lunar Module is jettisoned and Transearth Injection follows. Just prior to reentry into the earth's atmosphere, the Service Module is jettisoned, and the astronauts in the Command Module splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. The target point for end-of-mission splashdown is at 05 degrees 0 minutes north latitude and 158 degrees 40 minutes west longitude or approximately 985 nautical miles south of Honolulu, Hawaii. Splashdown is scheduled for Apr. 28, 1972 at 10:30 a.m. Hawaiian Standard Time (2:30 p.m. CST). Recovery forces for Apollo 16, stationed in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, will consist of three ships, nine aircraft and nearly 1,700 personnel. CTF-130 (Manned Spacecraft Recovery Force, Pacific) forces will be stationed south of Hawaii. Three ships, eight helicopters and three Air Force HC-130H aircraft, and nearly 1,100 personnel, will take part. Task Force 140 (Manned Spacecraft Recovery Force, Atlantic), comprising one ship, six HC-130H aircraft, three helicopters and approximately 300 personnel, will be positioned for possible launch abort operations. Two ships in the Atlantic will also be used for acoustical testing. Other forces, primarily aircraft and personnel of the Air Force Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Service will be on alert around the world for contingency recovery support.

Source record↗