First 2009 MSL Landing Site Workshop Options

[CosmicRocker]

I received this in email today. I haven't even begun to digest it all yet, but it really gives one a sense of the many complexities that must be considered by those who would compete in a game like this. It's kind of long, but I thought some of you would like to see it.

It's also kind of exciting to get a glimpse of the things planned for MSL. Now, I better appreciate some of the stuff the various space mission teams had to consider before they were selected for the end game. This is interesting stuff...

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks I am one of the "colleages" it was addressed to, I'm not. I just managed to land in some address list.

*********************

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

FIRST LANDING SITE WORKSHOP FOR THE
2009 MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY
May 31st-June 2, 2006
Pasadena, CA

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT FIRST ANNOUNCEMENT
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dear Colleagues:

You are invited to participate in the First Landing Site Workshop for the 2009 Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover mission to Mars. The workshop will be held May 31 through June 2, 2006, in Pasadena, California.

AN OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES:

The purpose of the Landing Site workshop is to identify and evaluate potential landing sites best suited to achieving stated mission science objectives within the constraints imposed by engineering requirements, planetary protection requirements, and the necessity of ensuring a safe landing. A NASA-appointed Landing Site Steering Committee and the Mars Science Laboratory Project will use the results of the workshop as the basis for narrowing the list of potential landing sites under consideration. Community consensus with respect to high priority sites will also be solicited. In addition, the workshop will provide a means for identifying potential landing sites as targets for imaging by the MGS, Odyssey, MRO, and perhaps other orbital assets. Note: the number of potential landing sites is high because MSL entry, descent, and landing capabilities enable a small landing error ellipse (20 km diameter), high landing site altitude (<2 km), and wide latitudes (±60°).

MISSION SCIENCE OBJECTIVES:

The primary scientific goal of the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is to assess the present and past habitability of the martian environments accessed by the mission. Habitability is defined as the potential of an environment to support life, as we know it. Such assessments require integration of a wide variety of chemical, physical, and geological observations. In particular, MSL will assess the biological potential of the regions accessed, characterize their geology and geochemistry at all appropriate spatial scales, investigate planetary processes that influence habitability, including the role of water, and characterize the broad spectrum of surface radiation. To enable these investigations, MSL will carry a diverse payload capable of making environmental measurements, remotely sensing the landscape around the rover, performing in situ analyses of rocks and soils, and acquiring, processing, and ingesting samples of rocks and soils into onboard laboratory instruments. A candidate landing site should contain evidence suggestive of a past or present habitable environment. To the extent that it can be determined with existing data, the geological, chemical, and/or biological evidence for habitability should be expected to be preserved for, accessible to, and interpretable by the MSL investigations.

An overview of the MSL mission can viewed at http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/overview. A summary of NASA's Mars exploration strategy is at http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mep/mslides/index.html and additional information can be viewed at http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/index.html. Web tools for visualizing and analyzing relevant Mars data as well as an archive of previously proposed and selected landing sites are available at http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/and http://webgis.wr.usgs.gov/, which also includes a web based GIS interface for relevant Mars data. Web sites for MSL landing site selection activities are http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/ and the USGS PIGWAD site http://webgis.wr.usgs.gov/msl, where workshop announcements, program, and abstracts can be accessed along with more detailed descriptions of the MSL mission, science objectives and investigations, and instruments.

PLANETARY PROTECTION CONSIDERATIONS:

The MSL project has been assigned to Category IVc by NASA's Planetary Protection Office with constraints on the landing site and regions accessed from it. Specifically, MSL is limited to landing sites not known to have extant water or water-ice within one meter of the surface. Later access to "special regions" defined in NPR 8020.12C (regions where terrestrial organisms are likely to propagate, or interpreted to have a high potential for the existence of extant martian life forms) is permitted only in the vertical direction through use of sterilized sampling hardware. The above are general guidelines for site selection; compliance of specific landing sites and nearby regions will be determined through discussions with the Planetary Protection Office during the site selection process.

MISSION ENGINEERING CONSTRAINTS:

Because the ability to ensure a successful landing for MSL is paramount, consideration of landing sites must include comprehensive assessment of limitations imposed by mission engineering constraints. Although these constraints continue to be established and refined, a description of preliminary values related to allowable locations, elevation, and surface properties follows.

The entry, descent and landing scenario employed by the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) flight system places engineering constraints on what would be considered a safe landing site of high scientific interest. The dominant considerations in landing site placement are latitude, elevation and the landing ellipse size. The MSL flight system is capable of landing in a circle of 20 km diameter, within which everywhere must be safe for landing and roving. This circle can be placed anywhere on Mars that is below +2 km MOLA elevation and within 60° latitude of the equator (60°N to 60°S). Steady state horizontal and vertical winds and wind gusts are a concern during descent and landing, so areas with potentially high winds will need to be compared with landing system tolerance during development. The landing system uses a radar altimeter, so the entire landing site must be radar reflective. Slopes at long and intermediate (2-5 km and 20 m) wavelength could negatively impact the altimeter, requiring slopes over 2-5 km length scales <3° and slopes over 20 m length scales <15°. Short wavelength slopes affect landing stability and trafficability, requiring slopes over 5 m length scales <15°. Rocks higher than 0.6 m are a problem for landing, requiring areas with intermediate or lower rock abundance. The landing surface must be load bearing and trafficable and so must not be dominated by dust. Persistent cold surface temperatures and CO2 frost will negatively impact performance. These latter three considerations will likely eliminate areas with very low thermal inertia and very high albedo. Surface characteristics (short wavelength slope, rocks and dust) of a trafficable surface are similar to those required for safe landing, except the small landing ellipse and long traverse capability allow the possibility of considering "go to" sites. These sites have a safe landing site adjacent to the target of science interest and require traversing outside of the landing ellipse to sample the materials of highest interest. In this case, the area that must be traversed to get into the region of highest science interest (required to accomplish the science objectives of the mission) must be trafficable from anywhere within the ellipse. All of the values for the parameters discussed will be refined during continuing design and development of the spacecraft, with updates posted on the web site, as will a more detailed discussion of these constraints. We expect the first posting around February 1, 2006 at http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/ and the USGS PIGWAD site: http://webgis.wr.usgs.gov/msl

All persons planning to participate in the workshop should review the science, engineering, and planetary protection constraints carefully, as only those landing sites that meet these constraints will be accepted for presentation at the workshop.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE:

All members of the scientific community are encouraged to participate in this important activity. Persons wishing to make a presentation at the workshop are urged to carefully review the science objectives and engineering and planetary protection constraints at http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/ and at the USGS PIGWAD web site noted above.

Most of the workshop will be devoted to submitted papers describing: (1) the overall types of sites for MSL based on associated scientific and programmatic rationale and suitability for safe landing and roving; and (2) individual landing sites on Mars and their scientific merit and safety. Individuals must prepare an abstract (no longer than one page using standard LPSC abstract format) summarizing their proposed topic or site. Talks advocating an individual site must summarize the science merits and demonstrate that the proposed location satisfies the mission science, planetary protection, and engineering requirements. A clear statement of the rationale for continued consideration as a possible landing site should also be included. A program will be prepared from the submitted abstracts and will be posted along with logistical information in late April, 2006.

Abstracts (no longer than one page using standard LPSC abstract format) are due by March 28, 2006, and should be submitted electronically via http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/. Detailed instructions on abstract format and submission will also be posted at this web site in February, 2006.

LOGISTICS FOR THE WORKSHOP:

The workshop will be held in the vicinity of JPL in Pasadena, CA, and there will not be a registration fee. In order to get a sense of the number of people likely to attend the workshop, interested individuals should indicate their intent to attend via http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/ by April 1st, 2006. Although we anticipate mostly oral presentations, there may also be poster sessions. Additional logistical information about the workshop will be distributed to the community in subsequent announcements and will be posted at: http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/ and http://webgis.wr.usgs.gov/msl Input from the science community is critical to identification of optimal landing sites for the MSL. We look forward to your involvement in these activities!

Regards,

John Grant Matt Golombek
Co-Chairs, Mars Landing Site Steering Committee

[mcaplinger]

We do get mixed messages about daily and total range, probably from sources written at different times as their thinking evolves.

Definitely true. And one has to consider the source too; there appears to be little consensus yet about what MSL operations will actually look like.

The current engineering constraints document says this:

"As part of its primary mission, the MSL rover would include the capability for traversing long distances. Currently, the system is being designed for a total actual traverse distance capability of no less than 20 km. For purposes of hardware life and cycle evaluation, it is assumed that this traverse occurs over a terrain with an average rock abundance of 15%, an average slope of 5 degrees, and an average slip rate of 10%. Under these conditions the rover would travel on average about 100-150 m/sol."

But Phil is probably correct that a lot of time will be spent at a particular site before moving on to the next site (as I understand it it takes a fair bit of time for SAM and Chemin to do their things), so the per-sol average traverse is probably not representative.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

(snip)
Besides being nuclear powered I think the greatest performance increase must come from software development. With all the lessons from MER under the belt it must be possible to build really better autonomous driving programs. I would think.

To my mind the key to range will be the nature of the software governing driving. If the site has a fair bit of relief, as I would expect, the ability to plan drives over a few hundred metres will be limited even with MRO data. A longer drive in one day will require automated hazard avoidance capability. But if you detect a hazard, what do you do? If you stop and wait for instructions, driving will be slow. If you can try multiple paths until a safe route is found to the designated target, driving longer distances in a day is more feasible. For instance, we might imaging the planners giving instructions to follow a pre-planned route, but offering alternative routes to the same place based on MRO data. If MSL is stopped by an unexpected hazard, it could search locally for a way round the hazard, or retrace its steps to a branch point and follow the second alternative route, without intervention from the ground. That would be faster. But I don't know anything about the strategy to be followed on MSL.

Phil

I agree with both of you. Autonomous capability is the key for long range and several targets.

I would add that they should design the rovers with a long lifetime and long range. It would add a bit of weight (for instance the only way to increase the lifetime of a ball bearing is to increase its size) but this extra cost will be recovered with less launchs. Provided of course that there are enough science targets within range.

[mcaplinger]

I agree with both of you. Autonomous capability is the key for long range and several targets.

I agree too, for suitable definitions of "autonomous", "long", and "several". But for autonomy as JPL has implemented it on MER, and for the range of MER, the autonomy is not frequently used because it doesn't work well enough to do anything but the simplest tasks. Certainly there's no high-level route planning like the sort Phil mentioned. And I'd be surprised if MSL will have or need any more autonomy than MER given the relatively small traverse distance they're talking about.

Now, we're currently working on a much smaller rover with much simpler autonomy that would have longer range (see http://www.amerobotics.ou.edu/research/sr2/ ), but I don't believe JPL is thinking along those lines.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

And I'd be surprised if MSL will have or need any more autonomy than MER given the relatively small traverse distance they're talking about.

software has no weight! The only harware which could add autonomy are a LIDAR (to have a true 3D scenery without using error-prone stereo vision) and a better aaptative wheel suspension. Otherwise to add "intelligence" into the software (such as alternate routes) adds cost only in the development stage. This cost is well repaid at time of roving on bad terrain, finding unexpected target, or getting the rover out of a dune or loose rocks.

[mcaplinger]

software has no weight! ... Otherwise to add "intelligence" into the software (such as alternate routes) adds cost only in the development stage.

Have you ever tried to write autonomy software? Regardless of what the typical AI/robotics researcher will claim, reliable high-level autonomy of the sort being discussed is well beyond the state of the art.

You might want to read about the work of Rod Brooks -- http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/contents.php -- for a discussion of the sort of autonomy we're working on.

[Cugel]

Have you ever tried to write autonomy software? Regardless of what the typical AI/robotics researcher will claim, reliable high-level autonomy of the sort being discussed is well beyond the state of the art.

Funny that you mention it. It's how I make a living! Unfortunately, I must agree with you. We are far from completely autonomous rover navigation software. But some things speak in our favor:

1. As being a relatively young field of interest, really substantial progress is possible within the next few years.
2. Our militairy friends are very interested in this, as more and more of their systems are becoming unmanned.
And because they are the ones with the big budgets and other resources we can hope to see some serious results. (A lot of people are currently working on this, it's big business!)
3. Computer hardware and sensor development is also on our side (Moore's law).
4. We don't need completely autonomous navigation right now, an incremental improvement would be fine and give us much.

Personally, I think with MSL it should be possible to do 1 km. drives completely autonomously (taking a week or so without further commands) in a Meridiani like environment. No science target selection, of course. Just obstacle detection and avoidance.

[J.J.]

I'm personally jonesing for Eberswalde Delta...I think the science in the delta proper, the crater floor, and the crater walls (presumably an old shoreline) would be fantastic.

[RNeuhaus]

But for autonomy as JPL has implemented it on MER, and for the range of MER, the autonomy is not frequently used because it doesn't work well enough to do anything but the simplest tasks. Certainly there's no high-level route planning like the sort Phil mentioned.

I think that the one of the factors that limited the MER's autonomy is due to the fact that their surface image from MGS and/or Odyssey does not provide enough surface resolution as the MRO will provide to MSL. On the other hand, one of the most important keys for the longer autonomy is due to the low height of the MER's mast PANCAM (1.4 m) that hinder the capability to anticipate better the forward surface conditions.

Rodolfo

Otherwise to add "intelligence" into the software (such as alternate routes) adds cost only in the development stage. This cost is well repaid at time of roving on bad terrain, finding unexpected target, or getting the rover out of a dune or loose rocks.

It is a very complicated matter to develop a high intelligence software to detect the subtle difference among the different kind of sand (loose and compact), besides takes the degree of slope, temperature of sand (hot sand, is sleeper since it is drier, wet sand, is better for traction) and also the relieve of sand also takes into the account on how to maximize the traction. On the other matter, about the safety, to decide to go whenever every aspects are meet the safety rules such as the stone height, slope, loose surface, wet surface, slippery surface and even inclusive any bigger saps that might appear than ones of often of Meridiani.

On the overall, I think we still have very little experience about the tricks of Mars surface. So the MSL must continue driving with care since it is still one of the space pioneers!

Rodolfo

[mcaplinger]

Our militairy friends are very interested in this, as more and more of their systems are becoming unmanned.

Well, maybe; of course, AI researchers have been saying exactly the same thing since the early '80s. The DARPA Grand Challenge ( http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge/ ) does lend some credence to the state of the art, but while software may weigh nothing, the hardware and sensors that drove the Grand Challenge vehicles were orders of magnitude heavier than what we could put on a Mars rover. (Memory and CPU cycles to run that software at usable speeds certainly weighs something!) Also, I think all the GC vehicles had to do was stay on the road, which is a totally different problem than that faced by a Mars rover.

Another point: most unmanned military vehicles, UCAVs for example, are teleoperated, not autonomous. The exceptions are those that fly simple courses with no sensors, like Global Hawk.

I stand by my original statement: we are nowhere close to deploying useful high-level autonomy on Mars.

[Guest_Richard Trigaux_*]

(snip)

I stand by my original statement: we are nowhere close to deploying useful high-level autonomy on Mars.

Yes, certainly. But some could be gained, relative to Oppy and Spirit, which could make a difference. More autonomy should certainly be possible without adding much mass, and within reach of the team who will actually write the programs. For instance trying alternative route when one don't work requires just adding lines of code, and it could save a day of roving at some occasions. Or having a fan of acceptable paths. The road is found by try and mistakes, actual computers are good for this.

[Jeff7]

software has no weight! The only harware which could add autonomy are a LIDAR (to have a true 3D scenery without using error-prone stereo vision) and a better aaptative wheel suspension. Otherwise to add "intelligence" into the software (such as alternate routes) adds cost only in the development stage. This cost is well repaid at time of roving on bad terrain, finding unexpected target, or getting the rover out of a dune or loose rocks.

True, but a computer powerful enough to run that software at a respectable speed does have weight. The MER's only use a 20MHz processor.
A more powerful computer may be slightly larger, and it will require more power.


And the other problem is, making a computer that has some degree of intelligence is difficult. Computers are stupid. Incredibly, unbelievably stupid. They will do only what they are told, nothing more, nothing less. If a rover is told to drive over a cliff, or into an obstruction that will damage it, it will dutifully do it, unless a programmer early on told it specifically not to do that. And if the programmer tells it "Don't drive into obstructions that slope 50 degrees to the left," and you try to drive the rover into something sloping the other direction, it'll smack right into it without a second thought.

That's just basic object avoidance. Having a computer then figure out the "best" route to get somewhere requires a whole new level of complex programming. Having it find multiple routes yet, and evaluate multiple factors, such as traversability and distance travelled, and then choose, that too is difficult.

Add to all of that that you want some kind of fault mode programming buried in there for when something goes wrong, like what happened with Spirit's flash memory problem. Fortunately, it had a fault mode that allowed for very low-level functionality.

Other sources talk about 10 km. during its lifetime of 2 Earth years.

That just amused me briefly - the MER's are already around 7km each.
But I get MSL would catch up to that mark very quickly.

[Phil Stooke]

I should probably make it clear that I am aware of the difficulty of programming autonomy into the driving.

In answer to one point, I wasn't thinking that the rover would do its own route selection, or multi-route planning, but that those things would be done on earth before each drive. The rover would follow a plan until an obstacle stopped it - and of course the plan would already avoid most of them. But once you are stopped by an unexpected obstacle, instead of stopping right there, you would ideally be able to back up one or two metres, check for safety to the left and right, and take a detour to try to get around the obstacle and back on the pre-planned track. Spirit does this now, from time to time - there have been instances well recorded in images of the tracks, for instance at Arad on 716 and just coming down off Home Plate on 779. I think a bit of improvement in that line is not unreasonable and would be very productive.

Phil

[The Messenger]

The workshop will be held in the vicinity of JPL in Pasadena, CA, and there will not be a registration fee. In order to get a sense of the number of people likely to attend the workshop, interested individuals should indicate their intent to attend via http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/ by April 1st, 2006. Although we anticipate mostly oral presentations, there may also be poster sessions. Additional logistical information about the workshop will be distributed to the community in subsequent announcements and will be posted at: http://marsoweb.nas.nasa.gov/landingsites/ and http://webgis.wr.usgs.gov/msl Input from the science community is critical to identification of optimal landing sites for the MSL. We look forward to your involvement in these activities!

Regards,

John Grant and Matt Golombek
Co-Chairs, Mars Landing Site Steering Committee

I notice in the mission planning, they recommend in situ measurements of temperature, density and pressure during descent at a sampling rate of 100 Hz. I think that with current techology, this could be quaddrupled with no weight penalty, and I would add a least three axis of acceleration to the mix, and an attempt should be made to telemeter all of this data in real time.

After seeing the dynamic buffeting both MER's suffered, the more data during this phase, the better.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Back in June 2002, the MSL science steering group wanted MSL to have substantial onboard autonomy allowing it to drive between its locations for detailed sampling and study at the rate of fully 450 meters/sol, or 3 km in 13 sols -- and, once it arrived, to "be able to approach a designated target, deploy the instrument arm, mini-corer, or drill, and begin science activities (measurements or drilling/coring), using only a single command cycle to initiate the full suite of activity." ( http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstre...4/1/02-1822.pdf ) . A typical plan based on this idea involved it, during 667 sols of operation, driving about 69 km to study 23 different detailed study locations for about 16.5 sols each.

Unfortunately, that plan then went a-glimmering, and they went back to the MER level of driving and target-approach autonomy ( http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstre...7/1/03-2974.pdf ; http://www.ninfinger.org/~sven/models/vaul...121secure31.pdf ), in which it would traverses only about 50 meters/sol and take a 3-sol cycle to approach any particular sampling target at one of its detailed study locations. For the reasons, see the first of those two documents, pg. 147:

"(1) PSlG wanted to balance science and engineering sophistication: Mission life driven much less by driving range, speed or hazard detection autonomy than by number of science decisions requiring human interaction at a rock sample site.

"(2) Large vehicle size allows for simple path planning.

"(3) Consistent with an 'autonomy to cost' strategy:
Hazard detection and avoidance test cost could be unbounded.
Could infuse more autonomy once science objectives are met."
______________________________


Assuming, again, that MSL spent a total of about 381 sols at its detailed study locations, it could drive only about 1/9 as far as in the earlier plan -- that is, about 7.7 km. And the new plan called for it to acquire 74 samples, each of which would now take about 7 sols to approach and collect -- so we're talking only about 150 sols worth of driving at 50 meters/sol, which again came out to only about 7.5 km.

Well. Now we're back up to an ability to traverse 100-150 meters/sol during long drives, so -- assuming that we still plan to spend about 380 sols collecting samples -- we are indeed back up to 15 to 22.5 km total drive distance.

[Stephen]

http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_2009_Rover.htm
This article talks about 'miles'.

http://space.com/businesstechnology/060118_msl_wheels.html
Is talking about 'hundreds of meters per day'.

Other sources talk about 10 km. during its lifetime of 2 Earth years.

Emily's "Report from MEPAG" entry on her blog reports Bruce Betts telling her that the MSL "will have a nominal mission distance of at least 20 kilometers".

======
Stephen