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 1 ways of exploring a given region. Performing cost-benefit analyses for future missions requires a way...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Ann
2003
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.154.6762 http://www.ic.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub/497h/0497%20(Glass).pdf |
| Summary: | 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 1 ways of exploring a given region. Performing cost-benefit analyses for future missions requires a way to compare the relative field science productivity of spacesuited humans vs. a virtual presence/ teleoperated robot or rover 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. |
|---|