Author Topic: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.  (Read 70371 times)

Online gosnold

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
  • Liked: 142
  • Likes Given: 1029
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #60 on: 05/24/2016 08:44 PM »
The flip side of the question is "how much more efficient is it to have an astronaut on the ground, compared to teleoperation, with low or high latency" ?
Because people on the ground are limited by the same factors identified by Blackstar:
  - to cross long distances, they need power for their rovers
  - to run instruments, they need power too
  - they need to wait on their instruments as they complete their analysis
  - doing field geology means they cannot do something else like maintenance

So would a geologist on Mars have produced the same amount of science as Curiosity in a few hours, if he had the same instruments and the same power budget?


« Last Edit: 05/24/2016 08:54 PM by gosnold »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10647
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 7511
  • Likes Given: 5286
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #61 on: 05/24/2016 08:49 PM »
The robotics stuff maybe needs its own thread. If someone knows a thread that already exists feel free to PM me... but right now we might be close to the edge of the topic. Not saying anyone's mumbling but are we adding anything new?
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1933
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #62 on: 05/24/2016 08:56 PM »
The robotics stuff maybe needs its own thread. If someone knows a thread that already exists feel free to PM me... but right now we might be close to the edge of the topic. Not saying anyone's mumbling but are we adding anything new?

Yeah I've been trying to enquire about what kind of ORBIT Lockheed's ORBITING Mars Laboratory would have about Mars, but it has been heavily drowned out by all the geeks obsessed with telerobotics which is a dead horse in here!
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline JazzFan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Florida
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #63 on: 05/24/2016 11:02 PM »
Interesting , but still not a lot of space for an extended voyage, especially once you factor in space requirements for consumables and stores.  I would love to see the use of a cargo module to be used in place of one of the Orion based habitats. 

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 371
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #64 on: 05/25/2016 12:17 AM »

Again missing the point. The tests are not being done for disarming bombs, puncturing tires or breaking car windows. The tests are being done for generic telerobotic capabilities, like level of dexterity, durability, traversability, lifting weights and negotiating obstacles, sampling and handling etc etc. I recommend even a brief reading of what NIST, National Tactical Officers Association and others are actually are doing in this area.
The capabilities are generic, and useful in multiple applications, which is why the same platforms are finding uses in multiple areas like industrial inspection and hazardous materials handling, mining, disaster recovery etc.

Just because planetary geologists haven't done a specific evaluation of what low latency vs high latency ops for a particular mission profile might mean, does not mean that there is no thorough understanding of existing low-latency telerobotic capabilities and more autonomous systems.

And, NASA itself and ESA have been running various teleoperation programs and field tests for about two decades now, including simulated time lag vs direct operated systems even going as far back as the Marsokhod mentioned above, if Mars geologists do not know what the comparative capabilities are then maybe thats easy to fix with a lecture.

I have been involved in using NIST for field robotics and can confirm they are very useful tools.

One paper comparing different operational modes is this one by Glass et al. from 2003 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030032439.pdf - I will note the assumed capabilituies of the autonomous rover are optimistic in the designated time frame - we are unlikely to see thiese for the 2020 or ExoMars rovers.

Also relevant (although I have only seen news reports) is the work by ESA on teleoperation of robots by astronauts on the ISS in 2015 http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/space-robots/esa-space-teleoperation-tests and 2016 http://www.esa.int/ESA_in_your_country/United_Kingdom/ESA_astronaut_Tim_Peake_controls_rover_from_space

"There is nobody who is a bigger fan of sending robots to Mars than me... But I believe firmly that the best, the most comprehensive, the most successful exploration will be done by humans" Steve Squyres

Offline jtrame

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 300
  • W4FJT
  • Knoxville, TN
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #65 on: 05/25/2016 01:03 AM »
Interesting , but still not a lot of space for an extended voyage, especially once you factor in space requirements for consumables and stores.  I would love to see the use of a cargo module to be used in place of one of the Orion based habitats.

Although undoubtably a subject for another thread, I wonder about the amount of interior space needed just for the mental well being of the team members.  Scott Kelly just spent close to a year aboard ISS and when you look at the videos of him moving about the station from module to module, looking out the windows, working, socializing, etc. it would be interesting to me to get his opinion on spending two years inside just one or two small modules. There is reason for the "Battlestar Galactica" approach such as depicted in the recent movie "The Martian." Or is there?  Any research aboard ISS on the long term effects of space travel must be weighed against the amount of interior space available for the occupants that may or may not be available on the Mars TransHab ship.  Even modern submarines are fairly large and have recreational facilities available for the crew.


Offline nadreck

I wonder about the amount of interior space needed just for the mental well being of the team members

I think part of what we should be studying in the future when there are more space habitats and more options are how much the complexity of the space plays a part as well. Does micro gravity increase or decrease the amount of space needed, does it change the nature of how we perceive/enjoy open space or coziness? 
It is all well and good to quote those things that made it past your confirmation bias that other people wrote, but this is a discussion board damnit! Let us know what you think! And why!

Offline Bubbinski

Would this proposed craft be reusable for multiple Mars missions, shuttling between Mars orbit and a cislunar outpost? If so I could see capabilities including landers being gradually added as budgets and partnerships allowed.

As for what a Mars orbital mission could do, besides exploring and sampling Phobos & Deimos, could a robotic Mars surface sample return craft dock with the Mars orbiting craft?  The astronauts aboard could examine the samples without exposing earth's biosphere to the Martian dust and dirt, and they'd have time during the return flight to see if the samples were biologically inert or otherwise.

Edit: I saw that the sample return to Mars Base Camp was touched on in the article on page 1 of this thread
« Last Edit: 05/25/2016 01:53 AM by Bubbinski »
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 371
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #68 on: 05/25/2016 05:08 AM »
Interesting , but still not a lot of space for an extended voyage, especially once you factor in space requirements for consumables and stores.  I would love to see the use of a cargo module to be used in place of one of the Orion based habitats.

We have't been given the internal volume AFAIK.

Rule of thumb for pressurised volumes is:

Survival requirements for missions this long is 15 m3 per person
Performance minimum requirement 30 m3 per person
Performance optimum requirement is 60 m3 per person

So preferably for a four person crew like this 120-240 m3. 

Orion provides 20 m3, two Orions 40 m3, so deep space hab and the laboratory modules, which appear identical would need to be 100 m3 each, about the size of the Destiny module on the ISS.

That's very close to the 268 m3 calculated by Rucker and Thompson for a deep space hab http://csc.caltech.edu/references/RuckerThompson_DeepSpaceHab.pdf

This looks consistent with the drawing shown
« Last Edit: 05/25/2016 05:09 AM by Dalhousie »
"There is nobody who is a bigger fan of sending robots to Mars than me... But I believe firmly that the best, the most comprehensive, the most successful exploration will be done by humans" Steve Squyres

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1789
  • Liked: 1616
  • Likes Given: 389
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #69 on: 05/25/2016 05:28 AM »
Does anyone else find it odd that this design has a set of chemical engines on both sides?

I understand that there could be a reason like not designing extra parts, so they can use the stages as extra tanks, but they image already shows extra custom tanks. It seems like they could save 500+ kgs by dumping the extra set of engine hardware. (based on 277kg for an RL-10)

Maybe they intend it as redundancy?

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #70 on: 05/25/2016 12:52 PM »
The flip side of the question is "how much more efficient is it to have an astronaut on the ground, compared to teleoperation, with low or high latency" ?
Because people on the ground are limited by the same factors identified by Blackstar:
  - to cross long distances, they need power for their rovers
  - to run instruments, they need power too
  - they need to wait on their instruments as they complete their analysis
  - doing field geology means they cannot do something else like maintenance

So would a geologist on Mars have produced the same amount of science as Curiosity in a few hours, if he had the same instruments and the same power budget?




I'd like to know how one calculates "efficiency" in that case. The human needs a huge amount of support--a spacecraft and all its supplies and all that entails. And the human is also not expendable, so you need to provide all that to bring her back to Earth as well. The robot is on a one-way trip.

My gut feeling is that you cannot really make that kind of calculation in a big sense. You are going to send humans for other reasons. But the question has validity for the kind of support that you provide them. How much do you require the human to do vs. the robots? It could be that you could do some calculations that would show you how to maximize the humans' productivity on the surface, for instance with a smart robot that can perform a lot of tasks and take the burden off the human. So an astronaut exploring the surface might have a robot companion and might say "Go scout around the perimeter and find X, Y and Z and report back to me. Then take these samples back to the hab."

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 929
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 644
  • Likes Given: 1135
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #71 on: 05/25/2016 08:32 PM »
This looks to me like a personal spacecraft, possibly with manipulator arms.

For simplicity's sake, it's likely an airlock. If there are arms, its an autonomous drone that can make repairs outside or perform routine maintenance.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1342
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 341
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #72 on: 05/25/2016 09:44 PM »
This looks to me like a personal spacecraft, possibly with manipulator arms.

For simplicity's sake, it's likely an airlock. If there are arms, its an autonomous drone that can make repairs outside or perform routine maintenance.
Attached is a notional graphic from a recent NASA study: http://trs2.nis.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20160006311&qs=N%3D4294927883  "Evolvable Mars Campaign Long Duration Habitation Strategies: Architectural Approaches to Enable Human Exploration Missions" which shows a Cygnus module attached to a habitation module co-manifested with Orion.  It has similarities to the LM design.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11378
  • Liked: 2892
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #73 on: 05/25/2016 10:58 PM »
Here:
« Last Edit: 05/25/2016 10:58 PM by Blackstar »

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 371
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #74 on: 05/25/2016 11:17 PM »
I understand answering the telerobotics thing is important, but I'd rather answer the question of what orbit Lockheed's idea would best occupy.  One reason I emphasis this is that low Mars orbit seems the default target for the Mars Ascent Vehicle; problem is something far higher like Phobos or synchronous seems the default parking spot for an Earth Return Vehicle; IMO I would think synchronous or even higher would be better to minimize the ERVs departure fuel and maximize the benefit of surface ISRU.

Any answers or educated guesses for this as opposed to more telerobotics mumbling?


Telerobotic exploration is hardly mumbling - it's the whole purpose of the mission!

"There is nobody who is a bigger fan of sending robots to Mars than me... But I believe firmly that the best, the most comprehensive, the most successful exploration will be done by humans" Steve Squyres

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 760
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 134
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #75 on: 05/26/2016 03:23 AM »
That's a fascinating presentation Blackstar. Is this part of an official plan?
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1933
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #76 on: 05/26/2016 11:59 AM »
Well at least we know that small module sticking out of the middle is an airlock officially.

I understand answering the telerobotics thing is important, but I'd rather answer the question of what orbit Lockheed's idea would best occupy.  One reason I emphasis this is that low Mars orbit seems the default target for the Mars Ascent Vehicle; problem is something far higher like Phobos or synchronous seems the default parking spot for an Earth Return Vehicle; IMO I would think synchronous or even higher would be better to minimize the ERVs departure fuel and maximize the benefit of surface ISRU.

Any answers or educated guesses for this as opposed to more telerobotics mumbling?


Telerobotic exploration is hardly mumbling - it's the whole purpose of the mission!

*bonks on head with a Bigelow inflatable mallet*  :P

I could say the same thing with Deimos/Phobos exploration!

As for a telerobotics/orbit connection, consider this: it tends to be easier to talk to your robot on the ground if your station is in visual contact for as long as possible.  This would eliminate low Mars orbit as a candidate.  A synchronous orbit is an obvious contender, but what if this orbital laboratory has purposes elsewhere around Mars?
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline dchill

  • Member
  • Posts: 90
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #77 on: 05/26/2016 01:21 PM »
Personally I think having a geology/chem lab in orbit is as valuable, if not more valuable, than the telerobotics aspect. 

The first mission can pathfind the safety, taking along the best spacecraft trouble-shooting astronauts on that mission.  The 2nd mission can take the RV sized chem lab along with the geologist/chemist astronauts.

That 2nd mission can gather multiple samples brought up by several Mars Ascent Vehicles, and do all the ISRU experiments on larger and more diverse sample sets than we’d bother trying to get all the way back to Earth.  Also by getting rid of the 6 month trip bringing rocks back to Earth, the 2nd, 3rd, etc. Rover/MAV pairs could be quickly refocused on finding and bringing up only the best rocks for IRSU, without all that lag in figuring which ones are good.

Just like the famous ISS calcium crystal clogged urine recycler problem, I wouldn’t trust anyone’s life to ISRU produced water, oxygen or fuel, unless it had been tested against more than a few rocks brought back to Earth.  It should also be attempted using the same industrial processes on the scale as what will eventually be needed to be useful for human exploration.

The RV sized chem lab is a good way to make a start (see Breaking Bad).  It might be the best way to get a foothold on Mars without ever having to develop huge landers that need to take all their consumables down with them…

Offline redliox

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1933
  • Arizona USA
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 64
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #78 on: 05/26/2016 08:04 PM »
Personally I think having a geology/chem lab in orbit is as valuable, if not more valuable, than the telerobotics aspect. 

I could agree with that.  The only amendment I'd add is that it'd be even more valuable directly on Mars.  However if we're talking samples from Deimos and Phobos though, such a lab would allow their rocks to be studied in their natural micro-gravity environment which might be disturbed when brought to Earth.  Also, assuming humans end up fetching the Mars Sample Return samples, a lab like this would have use analyzing some samples ahead of time, at the least to ensure they were preserved.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Dalhousie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Liked: 305
  • Likes Given: 371
Re: Lockheed Martin Orbiting Mars Laboratory discussion thread.
« Reply #79 on: 05/27/2016 01:15 AM »
Telerobotic exploration is hardly mumbling - it's the whole purpose of the mission!

*bonks on head with a Bigelow inflatable mallet*  :P

Makes a change from a feather duster I suppose. ;)


Quote
I could say the same thing with Deimos/Phobos exploration!

As for a telerobotics/orbit connection, consider this: it tends to be easier to talk to your robot on the ground if your station is in visual contact for as long as possible.  This would eliminate low Mars orbit as a candidate.  A synchronous orbit is an obvious contender, but what if this orbital laboratory has purposes elsewhere around Mars?

We use satellite relays on Earth for telerobotics, so why not Mars.  Examples include ROVs, UAVs, robotic surgery, control of robotic equipment on the ISS, control of ground robotics by the ISS. Why should Mars be any different.

I suspect that the orbit will be a compromise between propulsion requirements, Phobos (and/or Deimos) requirements, and communications. 
"There is nobody who is a bigger fan of sending robots to Mars than me... But I believe firmly that the best, the most comprehensive, the most successful exploration will be done by humans" Steve Squyres

Tags: