Follow this link to skip to the main content
JPL - Home Page JPL - Earth JPL - Solar System JPL - Stars & Galaxies JPL - Science & Technology
  NASA Logo
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
JPL Toolbar
Search JPL
Technology Selection & Risk Assessment
START Home Red Block
Middle Red Block
Case Studies
white line
About Us
white line
white line
Case Studies
white line
white line
 NASA agency-level studies:
     START Lite
     Technology Development
     Assessing Future Missions
     Integrated Resource Allocation
white line
 Science (SMD)
     Carbon Uncertainty
     JPL Chief Technologist Analysis
     New Millennium Program

     Enabling Mars Missions:
       - Biosignature Detection
       - Landing Site Selection
       - Selecting Technologies
       - Lander vs Rover
       - Autonomy
       - Hazard Avoidance
       - Predicting Technology Cost
       - Automated Design Tool

       - Science Traceability Matrix
       - Mission Architecture


     Space Telescopes:
       - Tech Investment Tools
       - Earth Observatory at L2
white line
 Exploration (ESMD)

     Astronauts on Asteroid

     Asteroid surveyors

     Schrödinger Mission

     Shackleton-Malapert Mission

     Tech Prioritization for

     Human-Robot Missions
       - Comparing Architectures

       - Task Scheduling
          - Allocating Tasks 1
          - Allocating Tasks 2

       - Lunar Mission Pilot
          - Human-Robot Polar Mission
          - Robotic Precursor Mission

       - Performance Improvements
       - System Architectures

     Autonomous Inspection
white line
 Aeronautics (ARMD)

     Capability Assessment
white line
white line
Publications & Proceedings
white line
white line
white line
Mars Level 2 Banner


Which technologies provide the best return-on-investment for intelligent rovers?

Whenever the Mars Pathfinder rover experienced a failure, it had to stop, wait for the next scheduled opportunity to communicate its problem to Earth (relatively brief periods each day, due to limitations of the rover's solar batteries), and wait for new commands attempting to resolve the problem. After each command, the Earthbound controllers would await Pathfinder's progress report before issuing a follow-up command.

The process, guided by extreme caution, was tedious and time-consuming. The twin MERs (Mars Explorer Rovers) currently on Mars follow a similar procedure. Technology that would increase a rover's autonomy -- that is, improve its ability to conduct science while reducing its need to phone home for help -- would save a great deal of time and therefore enable the rover to accomplish much more.

These studies represent efforts to determine the relative benefits of investing in various software technologies that purport to help Mars rovers do science more efficiently, avoid most failures, and diagnose and correct their own problems when failures occur.

The first study (Rover Autonomy Study #1) focuses on technologies that were proposed specifically to reduce fault rates observed during extensive field-testing in Mars-like terrain here on Earth.

The second study (Rover Autonomy Study #2) analyzes technologies that were funded as basic research, only loosely coupled to a mission. Hence, we needed to determine technology-derived capabilities and match those capabilities with mission requirements. These technologies are more advanced than those in Rover Autonomy Study #1, capable of automating entire sequential operations.

  About | Methodology | Case Studies | Publications & Proceedings | News | Sitemap | Home

  NASA Home Page   Primary START Contact: Charles R Weisbin
  Last Updated: January 24, 2013