Science Report:
Robotic Assistant for Human Explorer
This summary discusses the preliminary results of EVA observation of field geologists in simulation. The observed human explorer has extensive experience in simulation and conducting field geology while wearing a space suit. The purpose of the observation was to determine the amount of time spent during various stages of an EVA to determine the extent to which a robotic assistant would improve the overall efficiency of the human explorer. These observations will then feed into the overall concept and proposal for a robotic assistant.
The EVA 3 took place on Sol 5, and EVA 7 on Sol 8. It should be noted that EVA 7 was interrupted by the presence of the media crew, however the observations will still be valid even if the time allocation is not.
EVA 3 was approximately 3 hours in length from airlock departure to airlock re-entry. An additional hour was required for EVA preparation and return procedures, such as putting on and taking off the suits, radio checks, etc, and are not considered as part of the study. Approximately 2 hours of the EVA was transit time driving the ATVs to and from the parking site, and then hiking to and from the canyon in the Summerville formation. During these 2 hours, several radio checks were made to determine where it was possible to make contact with the Hab. The remaining hour was spent collecting 3 samples and transit between sample locations. The return hike back to the ATVs was delayed due to some uncertainty in the path back.
The observed human explorer required approximately 15 minutes per sample collection after a target was identified. The process for collecting the sample went as follows: setting down equipment bag, placing the scale bar next to the sample, taking context and close-up photographs, taking a GPS measurement, writing down the GPS coordinates and time in a notebook, removing sampling tools and sample bags from the equipment bag, writing notes in the notebook, and scooping the samples and placing in the sample bags. Of the 15 minutes spent collecting samples, 5 minutes were spent scooping the samples and placing them in the sample bags. Additional samples were required from this location, however the time required the EVA team to depart back to the Hab. A second EVA was required on Sol 6 to collect the remaining samples.
The canyon at the Summerville formation reduced the range of the radios; the human explorers were not able to communicate with the Hab while in the canyon. It was only when out of the canyon and in line-of-sight of the Hab were the human explorers able to communicate. This did not result in any specific time delay; however the lack of communication could impede the performance of the explorers should they have needed to communicate, such as during a health and safety emergency.
EVA 7 involved two human explorers examining an inverted channel. The first explorers climbed to the upper level of the inverted channel to act as a reference scale while the second took context photographs of the first from around the perimeter of the inverted channel. This process was interrupted by the media crew on several occasions. However, it is estimated that this process would take approximately 10 minute to complete without any interruption. On two occasions the first explorer requested the assistance of the second to climb to the upper level to examine specific features in the inverted channel. The second human explorer then had to pause the context photography and climbed to the upper level, and then climbed back down. On each occasion this was an additional 5 minutes. A second EVA was required to finish sampling this inverted channel.
EVA 9 involved one explorer climbing along a steep inverted channel looking for concretions. The inverted channel was an extension of a long ridge that formed the Brushy basin. As such, it was not possible to completely encircle the target feature to take context images; the context images were taken from a semi-circle that extended from the base the ridge around the inverted channel. The explorer examined multiple locations looking for concretions, however none were found. From the west side of the inverted channel, the rocks blocked radio communication with the Hab and communication was only regained from the top of the formation and the eastern side.
The gesture capturing was collected at the Hab on Sol 11. The Kinect 3D depth capturing was, as anticipated, was not successful in the outdoor lighting. However, video was taken to capture pointing gestures at different distances to mimick a field explorer pointing to a target of interest -- the idea would be for the field explorer to point to a feature and have a robotic assistant to take context images. The videos will be post-processed following the EuroMoonMars campaign.
After each EVA all of the meta data -- localization, timestamp, scale, photos etc -- is sourced from different tools. During the report writing period, all of the meta data must be appended to notes to create science reports. This consolidation of meta data takes a surprising amount of time to correctly complete and add to databases.
An important criteria in sending humans to explorer extraterrestrial surfaces will be maximizing scientific return. In other words, the goal is to maximize the amount of samples the human explorer is able to study as a function of the cost of sending the human to an extraterrestrial surface. From the above observations we can make recommendations for using robotic assistants, both mobile and static robotic agents, for improving the efficiency of human explorers:
1) Robotic agents as waypoints and communication relays. A robotic agent can be deployed at positions of known communicable line-of-sights with the Hab to act as relays when the human agents traverse further from the Hab. The robotic agent can also then act as a waypoint for the human agent to return to if they are taking that return path back to the Hab.
2) Robotic agents as guides. Mobile robotic agents can be visually taught to repeat a path back to a starting location [ref: T. Barfoot] (such as a waypoint robotic agent). This guide would allow the human agents to return to their starting point, such as the parked ATVs, without losing their known return path. A further extension of this guide would be the use of vibrotactors to provide directional cues to the human agent in the event of reduced or impaired visibility.
NOTE: one of the proposed tests at MDRS was to use a pair of vibrotactors to provide tactile cues to allow a suited human agent to follow a mobile robotic agent. The software to wirelessly connect the vibrotactors to the Android OS tablet was not ready in time for deployment. Furthermore, the Bluetooth enabled TI chips used to activate the vibrotactors are subject to export control and it may have caused problems crossing the border between Canada and the US. The vibrotactors do not specifically require the MDRS sim environment to test and it was decided that using directional cues provided visually by the Android Os tablet would suffice. This test was not conclusive as the errors from the onboard sensors were too large to provide useful directional cues. Furthermore, the use of GPS is not realistic for extraterrestrial surface exploration. Other means to determine the relative position of the human agent to the mobile robotic agent will be explored following the EuroMoonMars campaign.
3) Robotic agents as context imager and localizer. The human agent, while collecting samples or scene mapping with another human agent, took taking images. The robotic agent would take the context photographs and localize the positions from where the images were taken and the positions of the targets. In the case of EVA 7, the mobile robotic agent would travel around the base of the inverted channel while both human agents explored the upper level. Should the human agent want images of a specific spot, they can use gestures to communicate with the robotic agent.
4) Robotic agent as field assistant. The human agent takes notes relating to the location of the sample. These notes include a description of the location, the time, the GPS coordinates, and all other notes related to collecting the sample. While this would not be specifically a robotic tool, having voice recognized note taking would allow the human agent to dictate notes while collecting the samples in parallel instead of in series. In addition, the robotic agent would add the localization, times, and context images to the notes. With the notes with images and localized data already captured, the human agent would be able to perform light editing to complete reports of the samples instead of having to prepare an entire report.
Using EVA 3 as a baseline, the following improvements could be imagined:
1) Less travel time reaching the canyon as fewer radio checks would be needed with radio relays.
2) The human explorer would direct the robotic assistant to image particular targets. The robotic assistant would automously append all of the relavent meta data to the notes that are dictated by the human explorer. Sample collection would reduce from 15 minutes to 5 minutes per sample.
3) The return travel back to the ATVs would be reduced as the known path would be followed. This would allow the human agents to return to the Hab sooner; with less time required for report writing and more time available at the Hab, more time can be devoted to sample analysis in the laboratory.
4) The additional samples from the canyon would have been collected during the first EVA. EVA 4 on Sol 6 would have spent at a different location and science objectives would be met earlier in the campaign.
Using EVA 7 as a baseline, the following improvements could be imagined:
1) A robotic assistant would take the context images while both human explorers examine features along the upper levels of the inverted channel. The examination of the inverted channel may have been complete in a single EVA.
2) Similarly as above, the reports would have been completed sooner which would allow for more time spent in the lab analysing the samples.
3) Similarly as above, the second EVA would have been spent at a different location
Using EVA 9 as a baseline, the following improvements could be imagined:
1) Similar to the above scenarios, the examination of Brushy basin would have been completed in a single EVA and more time would be saved from report writing to work in the laboratory on sample analysis.
These three investigation sites each required at least 2 EVAs to complete the investigation and sample collection. A robotic assistant would have allowed each site to have been completed in a single EVA. Therefore, additional science goals could be acheived during the mission. It is therefore recommended that following the EuroMoonMars campaign that a preliminary design concept for a robotic field assistant be developed.
This sounds like an interesting project to work on for my PhD and I welcome support to further developing this concept. Future collaboration is more than welcomed :-)
--Matt