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 com...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Other/Unknown Material |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
2003
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20030032439 |
| 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 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. |
|---|