Revolution in Field Science: Apollo Approach to Inaccessible Surface Exploration

Clark, P. E.

doi:10.1007/s11038-010-9354-3

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the Apollo mission objectives were fairly geological in nature as at the time of the missions, relatively little was known about the lunar surface and astronauts were tasked with creating a baseline level of contextual knowledge (Clark, 2010). Although revolutionary in the inclusion of communication with a backroom of science (geology) experts on the Earth, the Apollo missions were strictly scheduled, leaving little room for exploration and the SWG had little opportunity to alter the EVA in response to any scientific discoveries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic Planning Insights for Future Science-Driven Extravehicular Activity on Mars

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Short-term and long-term science plans were developed as part of the strategic planning process used by the Biologic Analog Science Associated with Lava Terrains (BASALT) science team to conduct two Marssimulation missions investigating basalt habitability at terrestrial volcanic analog sites in 2016. A multidisciplinary team of scientists generated and codified a range of scientific hypotheses distilled into a Science Traceability Matrix (STM) that defined the set of objectives pursued in a series of extravehicular activity (EVA) campaigns performed across multiple field deployments. This STM was used to guide the pre-deployment selection of sampling stations within the selected Mars analog sites on the Earth based on precursor site information such as multispectral imagery. It also informed selection of hand-held instruments and observational data to collect during EVA to aid sample selection through latency-impacted interaction with an Earthbased Science Support Team. A significant portion of the pre-deployment strategic planning activities were devoted to station selection, ultimately the locations used for sample collection and EVA planning. During development of the EVAs, the BASALT science team identified lessons learned that could be used to inform future missions and analog activities, including the critical need for high-resolution precursor imagery that would enable the selection of stations that could meet the scientific objectives outlined in the STM.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategic Planning Insights for Future Science-Driven Extravehicular Activity on Mars

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, once they had collected that information, it was much more useful for them to place candidate markers at any potential sample location, rather than trying to threshold their quality during the EVA. This contrasts with the methodology used by astronauts in Apollo, where it was the astronauts that had the final say in whether to sample or not (Clark, 2010). In fact, there were some cases where discussions between the EV and IV crew about whether or not to place a candidate marker created confusion in the MSC.…”

Section: Results and Analysismentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The operational and decision-making structure used by the BASALT program has been developed over time from a range of experiences including the Apollo missions, various Mars rover missions, and a number of analog studies in terrestrial and aquatic environments (Clark, 2010; Lim et al, 2011; Bleacher et al, 2013; Eppler et al, 2013; Yingst et al, 2013; Beaton et al, 2017). While top-level scientific priorities are made by the Mars-based crew and Earth-based support personnel in concert during the planning stages, the communication latency introduced in a Mars mission dramatically shifts the decision-making process during EVA execution from what has previously been used in terrestrial, lunar, or robotic Mars missions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tactical Scientific Decision-Making during Crewed Astrobiology Mars Missions

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The limitations placed upon human explorers on the surface of Mars will necessitate a methodology for scientific exploration that is different from standard approaches to terrestrial fieldwork and prior crewed exploration of the Moon. In particular, the data transmission limitations and communication latency between Earth and Mars create a unique situation for surface crew in contact with a terrestrial science team. The BASALT research program simulated a series of extravehicular activities (EVAs) in Mars analog terrains under various Mars-relevant bandwidth and latency conditions to investigate how best to approach this problem. Here we discuss tactical decision-making under these conditions, that is, how the crew on Mars interacts with a team of scientists and support personnel on Earth to collect samples of maximum scientific interest. We describe the strategies, protocols, and tools tested in BASALT EVAs and give recommendations on how best to conduct human exploration of Mars with support from Earth-based scientists. We find that even with scientists supporting them, the crew performing the exploration must be trained in the appropriate scientific disciplines in order to provide the terrestrial scientists with enough information to make decisions, but that with appropriate planning and structure, and tools such as a “dynamic leaderboard,” terrestrial scientists can add scientific value to an EVA, even under Mars communication latency.

show abstract

“…Historically, a team dedicated to intra-EVA science support has been important to the success of human exploration. During the Apollo program (1961–1972), the Field Geology Experiment Support Room (Eppler, 2013), provided tactical (decisions made in the context of a single EVA) strategic (decisions made in the context of overall mission objectives) expertise to the crew during EVAs and ensured scientific information was rapidly disseminated out to the wider community (Connors et al, 1994; Schaber, 2005; Clark, 2010). As a consequence of its success, several analog programs looking toward NASA's plans for a human mission to Mars (Drake et al, 2010; Craig et al, 2015) have attempted to integrate ground-based intra-EVA science support teams into their mission architectures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing Intra-EVA Science Support Team Practices for a Human Mission to Mars

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the BASALT research program, real (nonsimulated) geological and biological science was accomplished through a series of extravehicular activities (EVAs) under simulated Mars mission conditions. These EVAs were supported by a Mission Support Center (MSC) that included an on-site, colocated Science Support Team (SST). The SST was composed of scientists from a variety of disciplines and operations researchers who provided scientific and technical expertise to the crew while each EVA was being conducted (intra-EVA). SST management and organization developed under operational conditions that included Mars-like communication latencies, bandwidth constraints, and EVA plans that were infused with Mars analog field science objectives. This paper focuses on the SST workspace considerations such as science team roles, physical layout, communication interactions, operational techniques, and work support technology. Over the course of BASALT field deployments to Idaho and Hawai‘i, the SST team made several changes of note to increase both productivity and efficiency. For example, new roles were added for more effective management of technical discussions, and the layout of the SST workspace evolved multiple times during the deployments. SST members' reflexive adjustments resulted in a layout that prioritized face-to-face discussions over face-to-data displays, highlighting the importance of interpersonal communication during SST decision-making. In tandem with these workspace adjustments, a range of operational techniques were developed to help the SST manage discussions and information flow under time pressure.

show abstract

Revolution in Field Science: Apollo Approach to Inaccessible Surface Exploration

Cited by 5 publications

References 20 publications

Strategic Planning Insights for Future Science-Driven Extravehicular Activity on Mars

Strategic Planning Insights for Future Science-Driven Extravehicular Activity on Mars

Tactical Scientific Decision-Making during Crewed Astrobiology Mars Missions

Developing Intra-EVA Science Support Team Practices for a Human Mission to Mars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About