Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “robotic field geology”

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.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS1996

Field Geology/Processes

The field geology/process group examined the basic operations of a terrestrial field geologist and the manner in which these operations could be transferred to a planetary lander. Four basic requirements for robotic field geology were determined: geologic content; surface vision; mobility; and manipulation. Geologic content requires a combination of orbital and descent imaging. Surface vision requirements include range, resolution, stereo, and multispectral imaging. The minimum mobility for useful field geology depends on the scale of orbital imagery. Manipulation requirements include exposing unweathered surfaces, screening samples, and bringing samples in contact with analytical instruments. To support these requirements, several advanced capabilities for future development are recommended. Capabilities include near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy, hyper-spectral imaging, multispectral microscopy, artificial intelligence in support of imaging, x ray diffraction, x ray fluorescence, and rock chipping.

Allen, Carlton↗
NASA NTRS2003

Evaluation of Human vs. Teleoperated Robotic Performance in Field Geology Tasks at a Mars Analog Site

Exploration mission designers and planners have costing models used to assess the affordability of given missions - but very little data exists on the relative science return produced by different ways of exploring a given region. Doing cost-benefit analyses for future missions requires a way to compare the relative field science productivity of spacesuited humans vs. virtual presence/teleoperation from a nearby habitat or orbital station, vs. traditional terrestrial-controlled rover operations. The goal of this study was to define science-return metrics for comparing human and robotic fieldwork, and then obtain quantifiable science-return performance comparisons between teleoperated rovers and spacesuited humans. Test runs with a simulated 2015-class rover and with spacesuited geologists were conducted at Haughton Crater in the Canadian Arctic in July 2002. Early results imply that humans will be 1-2 orders of magnitude more productive per unit time in exploration than future terrestrially-controlled robots.

Glass, B.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Virtual Presence: One Step Beyond Reality

Our primary objective was to team up a group consisting of scientists and engineers from two different NASA cultures, and simulate an interactive teleoperated robot conducting geologic field work on the Moon or Mars. The information derived from the experiment will benefit both the robotics team and the planetary exploration team in the areas of robot design and development, and mission planning and analysis. The Earth Sciences and Space and Life Sciences Division combines the past with the future contributing experience from Apollo crews exploring the lunar surface, knowledge of reduced gravity environments, the performance limits of EVA suits, and future goals for human exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The Automation, Robotics. and Simulation Division brings to the table the technical expertise of robotic systems, the future goals of highly interactive robotic capabilities, treading on the edge of technology by joining for the first time a unique combination of telepresence with virtual reality.

Budden, Nancy Ann↗
NASA NTRS1992

The roles of humans and robots as field geologists on the Moon

The geologic exploration of the Moon will be one of the primary scientific functions of any lunar base program. Geologic reconnaissance, the broad-scale characterization of processes and regions, is an ongoing effort that has already started and will continue after base establishment. Such reconnaissance is best done by remote sensing from lunar orbit and simple, automated, sample return missions of the Soviet Luna class. Field study, in contrast, requires intensive work capabilities and the guiding influence of human intelligence. We suggest that the most effective way to accomplish the goals of geologic field study on the Moon is through the use of teleoperated robots, under the direct control of a human geologists who remains at the lunar base, or possibly on Earth. These robots would have a global traverse range, could possess sensory abilities optimized for geologic field work, and would accomplish surface exploration goals without the safety and life support concerns attendance with the use of human geologists on the Moon. By developing the capability to explore any point on the Moon immediately after base establishment, the use of such teleoperated, robotic field geologists makes the single-site lunar base into a 'global' base from the viewpoint of geologic exploration.

Spudis, Paul D.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Instruments for Imaging from Far to Near

The acronym CHAMP (signifying camera, hand lens, and microscope ) denotes any of several proposed optoelectronic instruments that would be capable of color imaging at working distances that could be varied continuously through a range from infinity down to several millimeters. As in any optical instrument, the magnification, depth of field, and spatial resolution would vary with the working distance. For example, in one CHAMP version, at a working distance of 2.5 m, the instrument would function as an electronic camera with a magnification of 1/100, whereas at a working distance of 7 mm, the instrument would function as a microscope/electronic camera with a magnification of 4.4. Moreover, as described below, when operating at or near the shortest-working-distance/highest-magnification combination, a CHAMP could be made to perform one or more spectral imaging functions. CHAMPs were originally intended to be used in robotic geological exploration of the Moon and Mars. The CHAMP concept also has potential for diverse terrestrial applications that could include remotely controlled or robotic geological exploration, prospecting, field microbiology, environmental surveying, and assembly- line inspection. A CHAMP (see figure) would include two lens cells: (1) a distal cell corresponding to the objective lens assembly of a conventional telescope or microscope and (2) a proximal cell that would contain the focusing camera lens assembly and the camera electronic image-detector chip, which would be of the active-pixel-sensor (APS) type. The distal lens cell would face outward from a housing, while the proximal lens cell would lie in a clean environment inside the housing. The proximal lens cell would contain a beam splitter that would enable simultaneous use of the imaging optics (that is, proximal and distal lens assemblies) for imaging and illumination of the field of view. The APS chip would be mounted on a focal plane on a side face of the beam splitter, while light for illuminating the field of view would enter the imaging optics via the end face of the beam splitter. The proximal lens cell would be mounted on a sled that could be translated along the optical axis for focus adjustment. The position of the CHAMP would initially be chosen at the desired working distance of the distal lens from (corresponding to an approximate desired magnification of) an object to be examined. During subsequent operation, the working distance would ordinarily remain fixed at the chosen value and the position of the proximal lens cell within the instrument would be adjusted for focus as needed.

Mungas, Greg↗
NASA NTRS1994

Lunar exploration rover program developments

The Robotic All Terrain Lunar Exploration Rover (RATLER) design concept began at Sandia National Laboratories in late 1991 with a series of small, proof-of-principle, working scale models. The models proved the viability of the concept for high mobility through mechanical simplicity, and eventually received internal funding at Sandia National Laboratories for full scale, proof-of-concept prototype development. Whereas the proof-of-principle models demonstrated the mechanical design's capabilities for mobility, the full scale proof-of-concept design currently under development is intended to support field operations for experiments in telerobotics, autonomous robotic operations, telerobotic field geology, and advanced man-machine interface concepts. The development program's current status is described, including an outline of the program's work over the past year, recent accomplishments, and plans for follow-on development work.

Klarer, P. R.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Improving Lunar Exploration with Robotic Follow-up

We are investigating how augmenting human field work with subsequent robot activity can improve lunar exploration. Robotic "follow-up" might involve: completing geology observations; making tedious or long-duration measurements of a target site or feature; curating samples in-situ; and performing unskilled, labor-intensive work. To study this technique, we have begun conducting a series of lunar analog field tests at Haughton Crater (Canada). Motivation: In most field geology studies on Earth, explorers often find themselves left with a set of observations they would have liked to make, or samples they would have liked to take, if only they had been able to stay longer in the field. For planetary field geology, we can imagine mobile robots - perhaps teleoperated vehicles previously used for manned exploration or dedicated planetary rovers - being deployed to perform such follow-up activities [1].

Fong, T.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Curiosity's Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI): Inital Observations and Activities

MAHLI (Mars Hand Lens Imager) is a 2-megapixel focusable macro lens color camera on the turret on Curiosity's robotic arm. The investigation centers on stratigraphy, grain-scale texture, structure, mineralogy, and morphology of geologic materials at Curiosity's Gale robotic field site. MAHLI acquires focused images at working distances of 2.1 cm to infinity; for reference, at 2.1 cm the scale is 14 microns/pixel; at 6.9 cm it is 31 microns/pixel, like the Spirit and Opportunity Microscopic Imager (MI) cameras.

Mars Science Laboratory (MSL)↗
NASA NTRS1992

Robotic Lunar Rover Technologies and SEI Supporting Technologies at Sandia National Laboratories

Existing robotic rover technologies at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) can be applied toward the realization of a robotic lunar rover mission in the near term. Recent activities at the SNL-RVR have demonstrated the utility of existing rover technologies for performing remote field geology tasks similar to those envisioned on a robotic lunar rover mission. Specific technologies demonstrated include low-data-rate teleoperation, multivehicle control, remote site and sample inspection, standard bandwidth stereo vision, and autonomous path following based on both internal dead reckoning and an external position location update system. These activities serve to support the use of robotic rovers for an early return to the lunar surface by demonstrating capabilities that are attainable with off-the-shelf technology and existing control techniques. The breadth of technical activities at SNL provides many supporting technology areas for robotic rover development. These range from core competency areas and microsensor fabrication facilities, to actual space qualification of flight components that are designed and fabricated in-house.

Klarer, Paul R.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Smart Rotorcraft Field Assistants for Terrestrial and Planetary Science

Field science in extreme terrestrial environments is often difficult and sometimes dangerous. Field seasons are also often short in duration. Robotic field assistants, particularly small highly mobile rotary-wing platforms, have the potential to significantly augment a field season's scientific return on investment for geology and astrobiology researchers by providing an entirely new suite of sophisticated field tools. Robotic rotorcraft and other vertical lift planetary aerial vehicle also hold promise for supporting planetary science missions.

Young, Larry A.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Robotic Recon for Human Exploration

Robotic reconnaissance has the potential to significantly improve scientific and technical return from lunar surface exploration. In particular, robotic recon may increase crew productivity and reduce operational risk for exploration. However, additional research, development and field-testing is needed to mature robot and ground control systems, refine operational protocols, and specify detailed requirements. When the new lunar surface campaign begins around 2020, and before permanent outposts are established, humans will initially be on the Moon less than 10% of the time. During the 90% of time between crew visits, robots will be available to perform surface operations under ground control. Understanding how robotic systems can best address surface science needs, therefore, becomes a central issue Prior to surface missions, lunar orbiters (LRO, Kaguya, Chandrayyan-1, etc.) will map the Moon. These orbital missions will provide numerous types of maps: visible photography, topographic, mineralogical and geochemical distributions, etc. However, remote sensing data will not be of sufficient resolution, lighting, nor view angle, to fully optimize pre-human exploration planning, e.g., crew traverses for field geology and geophysics. Thus, it is important to acquire supplemental and complementary surface data. Robotic recon can obtain such data, using robot-mounted instruments to scout the surface and subsurface at resolutions and at viewpoints not achievable from orbit. This data can then be used to select locations for detailed field activity and prioritize targets to improve crew productivity. Surface data can also help identify and assess terrain hazards, and evaluate alternate routes to reduce operational risk. Robotic recon could be done months in advance, or be part of a continuing planning process during human missions.

Deans, Matthew↗
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 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 NTRS2012

Desert Rats 2011 Mission Simulation: Effects of Microgravity Operational Modes on Fields Geology Capabilities

Desert Research and Technology Studies (DRATS) is a multi-year series of NASA tests that deploy planetary surface hardware and exercise mission and science operations in difficult conditions to advance human and robotic exploration capabilities. DRATS 2011 (Aug. 30-Sept. 9, 2011) tested strategies for human exploration of microgravity targets such as near-Earth asteroids (NEAs). Here we report the crew perspective on the impact of simulated microgravity operations on our capability to conduct field geology.

Bleacher, Jacob E.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Are You Talking to Me? Dialogue Systems Supporting Mixed Teams of Humans and Robots

This position paper describes an approach to building spoken dialogue systems for environments containing multiple human speakers and hearers, and multiple robotic speakers and hearers. We address the issue, for robotic hearers, of whether the speech they hear is intended for them, or more likely to be intended for some other hearer. We will describe data collected during a series of experiments involving teams of multiple human and robots (and other software participants), and some preliminary results for distinguishing robot-directed speech from human-directed speech. The domain of these experiments is Mars-analogue planetary exploration. These Mars-analogue field studies involve two subjects in simulated planetary space suits doing geological exploration with the help of 1-2 robots, supporting software agents, a habitat communicator and links to a remote science team. The two subjects are performing a task (geological exploration) which requires them to speak with each other while also speaking with their assistants. The technique used here is to use a probabilistic context-free grammar language model in the speech recognizer that is trained on prior robot-directed speech. Intuitively, the recognizer will give higher confidence to an utterance if it is similar to utterances that have been directed to the robot in the past.

Dowding, John↗
NASA NTRS1997

Initial Results from Vision-based Control of the Marsokhod Rover

A geologist characterizing a field site typically wanders from one interesting geologic feature to another. Performing geology remotely with a mobile robot, we have observed the same behavior: geologists see a visually-interesting feature and wish to approach it for closer inspection. To date, navigating a mobile robot to a visually-interesting feature has been accomplished by driving to a location close to the feature. This introduces two problems: assigning a location to the feature and navigating the rover to that location. In practice, solutions to both of these problems are susceptable to positional error. Fundamentally, we can see where we want the robot to go, but it is difficult to precisely quantify where either the target or the robot are located. The development of vision-based control of robot manipulators suggests an alternative approach for mobile robot explorers. We have developed a vision-based control system that enables the Marsokhod rover to drive to within sampling distance of visually-designated rock or natural feature. We will describe this system and our initial results using it during a field experiment in the Painted Desert of Arizona.

Wettergreen, David↗
NASA NTRS2010

Operational Lessons Learned from NASA Analog Missions

National Aeronautics and Space Administration s (NASA) efforts in human space flight are currently focused on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) programs, with efforts beginning on the future exploration opportunities. Both the Space Shuttle and ISS programs are important to the development of a capability for human exploration beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The ISS provides extensive research capabilities to determine how the human body reacts to long duration stays in space. Also, the ISS and Shuttle can serve as a limited testbed for equipment or entire systems that may be used on missions to the Moon, Mars, or to a near-Earth asteroid. It has been nearly 35 years since the Apollo astronauts visited the Moon. Future space explorers will have to re-learn how to work and live on planetary surfaces, and how to do that for extended periods of time. Exploration crews will perform a wide assortment of scientific tasks, including material sampling and emplacement of automated instruments. Surface mission operations include the activities of the crew living and working, mission support from the Earth, and the operation of robotic and other remotely commanded equipment on the surface and in planetary orbit. Other surface activities will include the following: exploring areas surrounding a habitat; using rovers to collect rock and soil samples; setting up experiments on the surface to monitor the radiation environment and any seismic or thermal activity; and conducting scientific analyses and experiments inside a habitat laboratory. Of course, the astronauts will also have to spend some of their surface time "doing chores" and maintaining their habitat and other systems. In preparation for future planetary exploration, NASA must design the answers to many operational questions. What will the astronauts do on the surface? How will they accomplish this? What tools will they require for their tasks? How will robots and astronauts work together? What vehicle and system capabilities are required to support the activities? How will the crew and the Earth-based mission control team interact? During the initial phases of manned planetary exploration, one challenge in particular is virtually the same as during the Apollo program: How can scientific return be maximized during a relatively short surface mission? Today, NASA is investigating solutions to these challenges by conducting analog missions. These Earth-based missions possess characteristics that are analogous to missions on the Moon or Mars. These missions are excellent for testing operational concepts, and the design, configuration, and functionality of spacesuits, robots, rovers, and habitats. Analog mission crews test specific techniques and procedures for surface field geology, biological sample collection, and planetary protection. The process of actually working an analog mission reveals a myriad of small details, which either contribute to or impede efficient operations, many of which would never have been thought about otherwise. It also helps to define the suite of tools, containers, and other small equipment that surface explorers will use. This paper focuses on how analog missions have addressed selected operational considerations for future planetary missions.

Arnold, Larissa S.↗