Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:26:41.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Low-latency teleoperations, planetary protection, and astrobiology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2017

Mark L. Lupisella  and
Margaret S. Race
Mark L. Lupisella
Affiliation:
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Exploration Systems Projects, 8800 Greenbelt Rd., Greenbelt, MD 20771 E-mail: [email protected]
Margaret S. Race*
Affiliation:
SETI Institute, 189 Bernardo Ave., Mountain View, CA 94043. USA
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The remote operation of an asset with time-delays short enough to allow for ‘real-time’ or near real-time control – often referred to as low-latency teleoperations (LLT) – has important potential to address planetary protection concerns and to enhance astrobiology exploration. Not only can LLT assist with the search for extraterrestrial life and help mitigate planetary protection concerns as required by international treaty, but it can also aid in the real-time exploration of hazardous areas, robotically manipulate samples in real-time, and engage in precise measurements and experiments without the presence of crew in the immediate area. Furthermore, LLT can be particularly effective for studying ‘Special Regions’ – areas of astrobiological interest that might be adversely affected by forward contamination from humans or spacecraft contaminants during activities on Mars. LLT can also aid human exploration by addressing concerns about backward contamination that could impact mission details for returning Martian samples and crew back to Earth.This paper provides an overview of LLT operational considerations and findings from recent NASA analyses and workshops related to planetary protection and human missions beyond Earth orbit. The paper focuses primarily on three interrelated areas of Mars operations that are particularly relevant to the planetary protection and the search for life: Mars orbit-to-surface LLT activities; Crew-on-surface and drilling LLT; and Mars surface science laboratory LLT. The paper also discusses several additional mission implementation considerations and closes with information on key knowledge gaps identified as necessary for the advance of LLT for planetary protection and astrobiology purposes on future human missions to Mars.

Keywords

Low-latency teleroboticsplanetary protectionastrobiologyMars exploration
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Astrobiology , Volume 17 , Special Issue 3: Robotic Astrobiology , July 2018 , pp. 239 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anvari, M et al. (2005) The impact of latency on surgical precision and task completion during robotic-assisted remote telepresence surgery. Computer Aided Surgery 10(2), 93–99.Google Scholar
Beaty, D et al. (2006) Findings of the Mars special regions science analysis group. Astrobiology 6, 677–732.Google Scholar
Bobskill, M and Lupisella, ML (2014) Human Mars Science Surface Operations. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Presented at SpaceOps 2014, Pasadena, CA.Google Scholar
Bobskill, MR, Lupisella, ML, Mueller, RP, Sibille, L, Vangen, S and Williams-Byrd, J (2015) Preparing for Mars: evolvable Mars campaign proving ground approach. in Aerospace Conference, 2015 IEEE, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Burns, JO et al. (2013) A lunar L2-farside exploration and science mission concept with the orion multi-purpose crew vehicle and a teleoperated lander/rover, Advances in Space Research 52, 306–320.Google Scholar
COSPAR Planetary Protection Policy, 2002 with amendments up to 2011, https://cosparhq.cnes.fr/sites/default/files/pppolicy.pdf.Google Scholar
ESA-NASA (2007) Workshop on Planetary Protection and Human System Research and Technology. Available https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/documents in section on Human Missions and Planetary Protection.Google Scholar
Fong, T, Burns, J and Pratt, W (2014) Utilization of the International Space Station as a testbed for Crew-Controlled Lunar Surface Telerobotics. IAA Space Exploration Conference on Planetary Robotic and Human Spaceflight Exploration,.Google Scholar
John, K et al. (2016) The Biomolecule Sequencer Project: Nanopore Sequencing as a Dual-Use Tool for Crew Health and Astrobiology Investigations, presented at 47th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Abstract online at: http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2016/pdf/2982.pdfGoogle Scholar
Lester, D, Hodges, K, Ower, C and Klaus, K (2012) ‘Exploration telepresence from Earth-Moon Lagrange points,’ GLEX-2012.04.2.112250, IAF/AIAA Global Space Exploration Conference.Google Scholar
Lupisella, ML and Bobskill, M (2012) NASA Human Spaceflight Architecture Team: Cis-Lunar Analysis,’ Proceedings of Earth and Space. Sponsored by Aerospace Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers, pp 1515-1524. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/9780784412190.160Google Scholar
Lupisella, ML, Wright, MR, Bleacher, JE, Young, K, Gernhardt, M, Chappell, S, and Beaton, K (2017) Low-Latency Telerobotics and Telepresence for the Evolvable Mars Campaign. IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7943799Google Scholar
Mars Exploration Planning and Analysis Group (MEPAG) and Human Exploration of Mars Science Analysis Group (HEM-SAG) (2008) Report on ‘Planning for the Scientific Exploration of Mars by Humans,’. mepag.nasa.gov/reports/HEM-SAG_final_draft_4_v2-2.docGoogle Scholar
NASA (2005) Planetary Protection Issues in the Human Exploration of Mars, NASA CP 2005-213461. Available at: at https://planetaryprotection.nasa.gov/documents in section on Human Missions and Planetary Protection.Google Scholar
NASA Workshop on Planetary Protection Knowledge Gaps for Human Extraterrestrial Missions (2015) NASA Ames Research Center, held March 24-26, 2015, 2016, Mountain View, CA. Report published 2106, NASA STI, https://planetaryprotection.arc.nasa.gov/humanworkshop2015/.Google Scholar
National Research Council, Space Studies Board (2002) Safe on Mars: Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Martian Surface. Online at https://www.nap.edu/search/?term=safe+on+marsGoogle Scholar
National Research Council, Space Studies Board (2015) Review of the MEPAG Report on Mars Special Regions. National Academies Press, Washington DC, www.nap.edu/catalog/21816/review-of-the-mepag-report-on-mars-special-regionsGoogle Scholar
Rucker, M et al. (2013) Drilling System Study, Mars Architecture Design Reference Architecture 5.0. Document No: JSC 66635.Google Scholar
Schiele, A et al. (2016) Haptics-1: Preliminary Results from the First Stiffness JND Identification Experiment in Space,’ in Haptics: Perception, Devices, Control, and Applications, Volume 9774 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science pp 13-22.Google Scholar
Thronson, H et al. (2014) Low-Latency Science Exploration of Planetary Bodies: A Demonstration using ISS in Support of Mars Human Exploration. AIAA SPACE 2014 Conference and Exposition, AIAA SPACE Forum. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2014-4287.Google Scholar
United Nations (1967) Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. Available at: http://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htmGoogle Scholar