Author Topic: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.  (Read 121217 times)

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #160 on: 04/04/2017 07:24 pm »
http://www.space.com/36312-mars-base-camp-astronauts-2028.html

They're supposed to have 'fleshed out' the Mars Base Camp idea, but I haven't really seen any details we weren't already told ~a year ago.

I can't say I'm 100% behind Lockheed's idea, although I would find merit if they indeed confirm retrieving a MSR capsule and visiting the Martian moons as objectives.  Observing Mars from orbit (which is already done well enough by the likes of MAVEN, MRO, ect) isn't enough and I still get a lukewarm feel from telerobotics; a series of still frame pictures from either surface or orbital probes literally give you a survey map already; a live feed of digging up a rock isn't going to improve much beyond say PR brownie points.

Rovers can cover more ground and do more in less time if operated from orbit, but is it worth the cost of setting up a manned space station? Might be cheaper to send more rovers to be controlled from Earth.

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #161 on: 04/04/2017 08:21 pm »
http://www.space.com/36312-mars-base-camp-astronauts-2028.html

They're supposed to have 'fleshed out' the Mars Base Camp idea, but I haven't really seen any details we weren't already told ~a year ago.

I can't say I'm 100% behind Lockheed's idea, although I would find merit if they indeed confirm retrieving a MSR capsule and visiting the Martian moons as objectives.  Observing Mars from orbit (which is already done well enough by the likes of MAVEN, MRO, ect) isn't enough and I still get a lukewarm feel from telerobotics; a series of still frame pictures from either surface or orbital probes literally give you a survey map already; a live feed of digging up a rock isn't going to improve much beyond say PR brownie points.

Rovers can cover more ground and do more in less time if operated from orbit, but is it worth the cost of setting up a manned space station? Might be cheaper to send more rovers to be controlled from Earth.

Exactly.  More cost effective.  Telerobotics isn't enough justification alone or just "observing Mars" since we likewise have orbiter-satellites doing this already.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #162 on: 04/07/2017 09:53 pm »
They're supposed to have 'fleshed out' the Mars Base Camp idea, but I haven't really seen any details we weren't already told ~a year ago.

I don't think it is public yet. There was a workshop on this at LPSC a couple of weeks ago. I missed it, but they were focusing on science operations. And there's a lot of stuff that goes on that you guys don't know about.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2017 09:53 pm by Blackstar »

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15286
  • Liked: 7822
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #163 on: 04/08/2017 01:08 pm »
I should elaborate a bit: when I say that there's stuff going on that you don't know about, I mean stuff that is public, but not on the internet. Last year LM had a Mars Base Camp event in Washington, DC where they showed off some of their work. I attended that, but there was no internet posting about it (I even got to dock the spacecraft in orbit around Mars using their simulator). And there are presentations that happen at conferences and stuff that don't get reported. There was a quite significant internal JSC study about exploring Phobos (not LM's Mars Base Camp work, but complementary) that has really not been public. I've got some of this stuff electronically. I don't bother to post it here because everybody knows that SpaceX is going to settle Mars in seven years, so what's the point?
« Last Edit: 04/08/2017 01:09 pm by Blackstar »

Offline meberbs

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3096
  • Liked: 3379
  • Likes Given: 777
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #164 on: 04/08/2017 01:59 pm »
I don't bother to post it here because everybody knows that SpaceX is going to settle Mars in seven years, so what's the point?
I am a big fan of SpaceX, and am looking forward to them landing us on Mars. I recognize however,  that it will almost certainly be delayed at least 4 years from the timeline Elon gave (he knows it was unrealistic too) and probably will be delayed more than that. There is also a very real chance they don't get it to work, or end up at a smaller scale than planned.

I want to hear about plans like this that are at least serious proposals, and reasonable steps forward. If we can pursue multiple viable forward paths in parallel, that only increases how quickly we can get off this rock and into the rest of the solar system. I was excited to hear about NASA's cislunar habitat plans, and think it is a great forward direction, even if I think there are some basic ways it can be improved, such as being less based on an extremely expensive, low flight rate rocket, when similar objectives could be done with available and upcoming commercial rockets. LM's Mars Base Camp is another improvement to it, since I think that is a better design than trying for a single piece 40 ton deep space transport.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #165 on: 04/08/2017 03:22 pm »
I don't bother to post it here because everybody knows that SpaceX is going to settle Mars in seven years, so what's the point?
I want to hear about plans like this that are at least serious proposals, and reasonable steps forward.

I want to hear about them too!

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #166 on: 04/08/2017 10:33 pm »
http://www.space.com/36312-mars-base-camp-astronauts-2028.html

They're supposed to have 'fleshed out' the Mars Base Camp idea, but I haven't really seen any details we weren't already told ~a year ago.

I can't say I'm 100% behind Lockheed's idea, although I would find merit if they indeed confirm retrieving a MSR capsule and visiting the Martian moons as objectives.  Observing Mars from orbit (which is already done well enough by the likes of MAVEN, MRO, ect) isn't enough and I still get a lukewarm feel from telerobotics; a series of still frame pictures from either surface or orbital probes literally give you a survey map already; a live feed of digging up a rock isn't going to improve much beyond say PR brownie points.

The more I see the development in consumer virtual reality, the more I think teleoperation will be the way to go for science activities: a dedicated robot can give you eyes and hands on Mars, and carry a suite of instruments along with it. The only advantage an astronaut would have would be mobility in hazardous terrain, where you can avoid the rocks on foot but not with a wheeled vehicle.

Toys.  The difficulty is not the VR.  Itos the actual hardware that does the work. Far better and easier to have people to the work on Mars directly that using telerobotics.
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #167 on: 04/08/2017 10:37 pm »
everybody knows that SpaceX is going to settle Mars in seven years, so what's the point?

I don't know this but then I have not drunk the SpaceX Kool-Aid.......

Please post this stuff.  I am not particularly enamoured by this approach for many reasons, but it's an idea that should be explored.
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 2116
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #168 on: 04/10/2017 08:44 pm »
http://www.space.com/36312-mars-base-camp-astronauts-2028.html

They're supposed to have 'fleshed out' the Mars Base Camp idea, but I haven't really seen any details we weren't already told ~a year ago.

I can't say I'm 100% behind Lockheed's idea, although I would find merit if they indeed confirm retrieving a MSR capsule and visiting the Martian moons as objectives.  Observing Mars from orbit (which is already done well enough by the likes of MAVEN, MRO, ect) isn't enough and I still get a lukewarm feel from telerobotics; a series of still frame pictures from either surface or orbital probes literally give you a survey map already; a live feed of digging up a rock isn't going to improve much beyond say PR brownie points.

The more I see the development in consumer virtual reality, the more I think teleoperation will be the way to go for science activities: a dedicated robot can give you eyes and hands on Mars, and carry a suite of instruments along with it. The only advantage an astronaut would have would be mobility in hazardous terrain, where you can avoid the rocks on foot but not with a wheeled vehicle.

Toys.  The difficulty is not the VR.  Itos the actual hardware that does the work. Far better and easier to have people to the work on Mars directly that using telerobotics.

I'd love to take your word for it, but I have yet to see a study comparing the exploration of Mars with a human landing vs telerobotics, in terms of scientific return and budget.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #169 on: 04/11/2017 02:30 am »

I'd love to take your word for it, but I have yet to see a study comparing the exploration of Mars with a human landing vs telerobotics, in terms of scientific return and budget.

There are several options for the people:
In a Mars Base
In a lander on Mars
In a spacestation around Mars
In a transfer vehicle around Mars
Back on Earth.

All have different costs, different advantages and time delays.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #170 on: 04/11/2017 03:16 am »
http://www.space.com/36312-mars-base-camp-astronauts-2028.html

They're supposed to have 'fleshed out' the Mars Base Camp idea, but I haven't really seen any details we weren't already told ~a year ago.

I can't say I'm 100% behind Lockheed's idea, although I would find merit if they indeed confirm retrieving a MSR capsule and visiting the Martian moons as objectives.  Observing Mars from orbit (which is already done well enough by the likes of MAVEN, MRO, ect) isn't enough and I still get a lukewarm feel from telerobotics; a series of still frame pictures from either surface or orbital probes literally give you a survey map already; a live feed of digging up a rock isn't going to improve much beyond say PR brownie points.

The more I see the development in consumer virtual reality, the more I think teleoperation will be the way to go for science activities: a dedicated robot can give you eyes and hands on Mars, and carry a suite of instruments along with it. The only advantage an astronaut would have would be mobility in hazardous terrain, where you can avoid the rocks on foot but not with a wheeled vehicle.

Toys.  The difficulty is not the VR.  Itos the actual hardware that does the work. Far better and easier to have people to the work on Mars directly that using telerobotics.

I'd love to take your word for it, but I have yet to see a study comparing the exploration of Mars with a human landing vs telerobotics, in terms of scientific return and budget.

So would I! :)

There are a few studies out there that try to do that.  But they all have issues. Part of the difficulty is that teleoperated and crewed exploration tend to go about things differently and have somewhat different goals, tailored to their respective strengths and weaknesses. 

I have found the following helpful.

Geoff Landis did this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576507001634 (earlier version here https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20050203988) which is quite detailed but (IMHO) flawed by a very optimistic view of teleoperated capabilities.

Brian Glass et. al did an interesting study here showing significant improvements of astronauts over teleoperation, but it's quite brief. https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/497h/0497%20(Glass).pdf

Ian Crawford's paper compares the productivity of Apollo astronauts with the only teleoperated planetary rovers to date, the Lunokhods.  https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.6250.pdf

The National Academy of Sciences Space Studies Board reviewed the option of servicing Hubble by advanced robotics (e.g. DEXTRE or Robonaut equivalents) and concluded that the teebrotic option had an 80% chance of failure https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11169/assessment-of-options-for-extending-the-life-of-the-hubble-space-telescope

It may be relevant that Robert Balland was in the late 80s saying that the days of crewed submersibles were numbered and they would be replaced by ROVs.  It's 30 years layer and ROVs have certainly proliferated, but they have not replaced either divers or crewed submersibles in many tasks.

If there are others papers, let me know!



Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #171 on: 04/11/2017 04:45 am »

I'd love to take your word for it, but I have yet to see a study comparing the exploration of Mars with a human landing vs telerobotics, in terms of scientific return and budget.

It may be possible to do an experiment to measure the effectiveness on the Earth. Get a prototype or backup rover. Transport it to a quarry and find out what can be discovered in say 2 weeks. Then repeat with an astronaut is a space suit like in NASA's Desert RATS. Compare results.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #172 on: 04/11/2017 04:52 am »

I'd love to take your word for it, but I have yet to see a study comparing the exploration of Mars with a human landing vs telerobotics, in terms of scientific return and budget.

It may be possible to do an experiment to measure the effectiveness on the Earth. Get a prototype or backup rover. Transport it to a quarry and find out what can be discovered in say 2 weeks. Then repeat with an astronaut is a space suit like in NASA's Desert RATS. Compare results.

That is what the Brian Glass paper linked to above did
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 2116
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #173 on: 04/11/2017 05:49 pm »

I'd love to take your word for it, but I have yet to see a study comparing the exploration of Mars with a human landing vs telerobotics, in terms of scientific return and budget.

It may be possible to do an experiment to measure the effectiveness on the Earth. Get a prototype or backup rover. Transport it to a quarry and find out what can be discovered in say 2 weeks. Then repeat with an astronaut is a space suit like in NASA's Desert RATS. Compare results.

That is what the Brian Glass paper linked to above did

The Brian Glass paper is a great find, thank you for linking it!
It compares on-site geologists in EVA suits, geologists in "shirt-sleeve", rovers controlled with no delay and rovers with an Earth-Mars latency.

Conclusion is:


Quote
While human exploration may appear to be 1-2 orders of magnitude more productive than future Earth-controlled robots, the current study seems to indicate that this capability gap narrows with local Mars control of the robots

So rovers controlled from the Mars Orbiting Lab would be 5x times less productive than boots on the ground, per unit of time. One open point is how much time would a MOL mission or a human landing mission dedicate to exploration. With that factored in, the remaining question is does the increased productivity of landed geologists offset the increase in cost due to the landing, Mars stay and ascent?

Offline Kansan52

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1488
  • Hutchinson, KS
  • Liked: 570
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #174 on: 04/11/2017 06:06 pm »
This quotes has stuck with me:

"the unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol a human explorer could do in less than a minute" Steve Squires

Dr Squires is Principal Investigator of the Mars Exploration Rovers.

Offline gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 572
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 2116
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #175 on: 04/11/2017 06:19 pm »

So would I! :)

There are a few studies out there that try to do that.  But they all have issues. Part of the difficulty is that teleoperated and crewed exploration tend to go about things differently and have somewhat different goals, tailored to their respective strengths and weaknesses. 

I have found the following helpful.

Geoff Landis did this study http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576507001634 (earlier version here https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20050203988) which is quite detailed but (IMHO) flawed by a very optimistic view of teleoperated capabilities.

Brian Glass et. al did an interesting study here showing significant improvements of astronauts over teleoperation, but it's quite brief. https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/497h/0497%20(Glass).pdf

Ian Crawford's paper compares the productivity of Apollo astronauts with the only teleoperated planetary rovers to date, the Lunokhods.  https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.6250.pdf

The National Academy of Sciences Space Studies Board reviewed the option of servicing Hubble by advanced robotics (e.g. DEXTRE or Robonaut equivalents) and concluded that the teebrotic option had an 80% chance of failure https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11169/assessment-of-options-for-extending-the-life-of-the-hubble-space-telescope

It may be relevant that Robert Balland was in the late 80s saying that the days of crewed submersibles were numbered and they would be replaced by ROVs.  It's 30 years layer and ROVs have certainly proliferated, but they have not replaced either divers or crewed submersibles in many tasks.

If there are others papers, let me know!

I looked for a free version of the Landis study and I think I found a more recent one, also by Landis, which answers the question more directly:
HERRO Missions to Mars and Venus using Telerobotic Surface Exploration from Orbit
George R. Schmidt, Geoffrey A. Landis, and Steven R. Oleson
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9a6f/bf706e3b0256212a51245df7a7ce0344b77d.pdf

Quote
This paper presents concepts for human missions to the orbits of Mars and Venus that
feature direct robotic exploration of the planets’ surfaces via teleoperation from orbit.
These missions are good examples of Human Exploration using Real-time Robotic
Operations (HERRO), an exploration strategy that refrains from sending humans to the
surfaces of planets with large gravity wells. HERRO avoids the need for complex and
expensive man-rated lander/ascent vehicles and surface systems. Additionally, the humans
are close enough to the surface to eliminate the two-way communication latency that
constrains typical robotic space missions, thus allowing real-time command and control of
surface operations and experiments by the crew. In fact through use of state-of-the-art
telecommunications and robotics, HERRO could provide the cognitive and decision-making
advantages of having humans at the site of study for only a fraction of the cost of
conventional human surface missions. HERRO is very similar to how oceanographers and
oil companies use telerobotic submersibles to work in inaccessible areas of the ocean, and
represents a more expedient, near-term step prior to landing humans on Mars and other
large planetary bodies. Its concentration on in-space transportation systems makes it
extensible to destinations that have not been associated with human missions in the past but
may be of potentially great scientific interest, such as Venus.

It's a great read, and has a very interesting robotics architecture (small, agile robots capable of climbing rocks and carried by larger, faster overs to move them around between interesting sites and to recharge them).

I'm going to spoil the conclusion:


Seems to me the telerobotics mission could even be done without heavy lift, because contrary to the human landing mission it does not need a big shield for EDL, and thus does not need a large fairing.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #176 on: 04/11/2017 06:43 pm »
This quotes has stuck with me:

"the unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol a human explorer could do in less than a minute" Steve Squires

Dr Squires is Principal Investigator of the Mars Exploration Rovers.

Robots are getting faster though, and humans aren't.

And, of course, there is a "breakeven" point for determining whether there is an ROI for sending humans, which is quite high.  For robotic explorers it's far lower, so we can afford to send them to places humans shouldn't yet go.

Robotic explorers are great precursors for eventual human exploration, and one would hope they will always be good partners when both are in the same place...
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #177 on: 04/11/2017 11:26 pm »
This quotes has stuck with me:

"the unfortunate truth is that most things our rovers can do in a perfect sol a human explorer could do in less than a minute" Steve Squires

Dr Squires is Principal Investigator of the Mars Exploration Rovers.

Robots are getting faster though, and humans aren't.

And, of course, there is a "breakeven" point for determining whether there is an ROI for sending humans, which is quite high.  For robotic explorers it's far lower, so we can afford to send them to places humans shouldn't yet go.

Robotic explorers are great precursors for eventual human exploration, and one would hope they will always be good partners when both are in the same place...

This is said many times over the past 50 years, but the reality never lives up to the expectations (or the hype).  You almost never hear people who work with actual robots on space missions saying this.  There have been incremental improvements, but nothing really spectacular.  Certainly not enough to impact the 3-4 orders of superiority of astronauts in field science and engineering.  Read the Glass paper linked to above.  The capabilities predicted in that paper for a 2015 robot have still not been achieved.

Your naked human's performance has not improved, but the performance of an astronaut in a suit is improving all the time - with better training, suits, tools, sensors, and communications.

« Last Edit: 04/11/2017 11:29 pm by Dalhousie »
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2766
  • Liked: 780
  • Likes Given: 1131
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #178 on: 04/11/2017 11:30 pm »
Seems to me the telerobotics mission could even be done without heavy lift, because contrary to the human landing mission it does not need a big shield for EDL, and thus does not need a large fairing.

You can doing everything without heavy lift if you want to do it the hard way.
Apologies in advance for any lack of civility - it's unintended

Offline lcasv

Our effort must be oriented to get artificial gravity. The following presentation is

 a new approach to get  1 G gravity.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1