Balancing the Role of Humans and Automation in the Surface Exploration of Mars
- Paper number
IAC-05-A5.2.02
- Author
Mr. Julien-Alexandre Lamamy, Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT), United States
- Coauthor
Mr. Sandro Catanzaro, Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT), United States
- Coauthor
Dr. Jeffrey Hoffman, Massachussets Institute of Technology (MIT), United States
- Year
2005
- Abstract
We have previously shown that, while a crew size of four is the minimum crew size for the exploration of Mars, a crew of five is preferred because it optimizes the following metrics: Public Visibility, Group Dynamics, Skill Mix, Science, Robustness, and Mass in Low Earth Orbit (used as a surrogate for cost). The present study builds on this analysis by taking into account the benefits of automation. The science and robustness added by the fifth crew member could be achieved by a crew of four supplemented by increased automation. Previous studies of the balance between human and automation focused primarily on orbital space applications. These studies used cost numbers for Extravehicular Activities (EVAs) based on the experience of the International Space Station; the results are therefore not applicable to the surface exploration of Mars. This study proposes a new rationale for determining the right mix of humans and automation for surface exploration missions. It provides a method for identifying which operations to automate and for budgeting the automation in terms of autonomy and mass requirements. Automation is preferable to a fifth crew member when it can provide more value for the same cost. Automation can increase the value output of a mission in three ways: it can minimize crew time spent on overhead operations (e.g. maintenance), increase crew productivity (e.g. EVA assistance), and enhance the value of a mission beyond the capabilities of the crew (e.g. fetch samples outside the crew exploration range). A previous Draper-MIT study showed that bringing an extra crew member on a round trip to Mars is equivalent, in terms of mass in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), to delivering as much as 13 metric tons of payload to the Martian surface. This mass equivalent is the basis for comparison between crew members and suites of robots. The value of a crew member is estimated by using work time as a proximate metric. Based on Lockheed’s First Lunar Outpost study, a crew member would work seven and a half hours per day. The fifth crew member should be replaced by robots only if these machines can save on average more than seven and half hours of work per day. The current study proposes a five step approach to set automation requirements. First, all the activities performed by the crew are listed. The second step is identifying the activities that can be automated and are desirable to automate. For example, autonomous sample selection is feasible but may not be desired by the scientific community. In the third step, the automation requirements are defined based on the necessary savings in crew time. Then, these requirements are used to to determine the optimal mode of operation using a combination of tele-operation from Earth, tele-operation by the crew, and autonomy. Lastly, comparison of the total mass of the robotic suite with the 13 metric ton mass equivalent is used to decide whether automation should be used. The study also considers the issue of spare parts. In addition to automation, the 13 metric ton budget can be used to bring an extensive suite of spare parts, thereby reducing the time the crew would have to spend on repairs. Based on the First Lunar Outpost study, a minimum of 200 hours would be spent on repair during a 600 day mission on the Martian surface, the majority of which could be saved. Acknowledgements This analysis has been carried out under the NASA’s Concept Exploration and Refinement (CE\&R) contract for MIT and Draper.
- Abstract document
- Manuscript document
IAC-05-A5.2.02.pdf (🔒 authorized access only).
To get the manuscript, please contact IAF Secretariat.