Motivation: When NASA returns to the Moon, one challenge is going to be the same as it was during the Apollo era: How can scientific return be maximized for any given period of surface activity? Unlike Apollo, however, the current lunar architecture involves a mixture of crewed and robotic surface missions , which will be used to establish infrastructure and eventually an outpost. Initially, crewed missions will be short in duration (2-3 weeks), interspersed by lengthy periods (6-12 months) without human presence. During these periods of time, it is expected that teleoperated robots will be used to perform surface tasks, including scientific exploration. Towards the end of Apollo, an organizational structure known informally as the " Science Backroom " supported lunar surface science operations. This team was located at mission control and helped astronauts make real-time decisions by reviewing audio and video transmissions and providing recommendations (e.g., for geologic sampling). Given the success of the " Science Backroom " at improving science return during Apollo, an important question is: How can such a structure support future lunar missions, especially if both human and robotic activity are involved? Objectives: To understand the utility of a science backroom for the current lunar architecture, we are conducting a series of analog field tests to identify organizational issues, explore team structure and roles, and develop operational protocols and metrics. Our research is guided by three objectives. First, our work is intended to inform NASA's lunar architecture team about surface science: Which of the lunar science priorities recommended by the National Research Council [1] can be addressed? What are the definining characteristics (e.g., comprehensive area coverage vs. targeted traverse sampling)? What resources (communications , EVA/IVA time, etc.) are needed? Second, we are interested in learning how to efficiently and effectively coordinate humans and robots during surface activity [2, 3]. In particular, we believe it is critical to understand: What surface science tasks can humans and/or robots efficiently perform? How can robotic activity (before, between and with crews) improve human productivity? What are the trade-offs when using different human-robot team structures? Third, we are concerned with understanding the differences between conducting remote robotic science on Mars and the Moon. Specifically, the operations
[1]
Maria Bualat,et al.
Virtual Reality Interfaces for Visualization and Control of Remote Vehicles
,
2001,
Auton. Robots.
[2]
Carol R. Stoker,et al.
The search for life on Mars: The role of rovers
,
1998
.
[3]
Andrew Mishkin,et al.
Integrated Human-Robotic Missions to the Moon and Mars: Mission Operations Design Implications
,
2007
.
[4]
Illah R. Nourbakhsh,et al.
Interaction challenges in human-robot space exploration
,
2005,
INTR.