Overview
Section titled “Overview”A commercial rover that flies before its buyer has committed to it has to prove its subsystems at flight scale without a customer’s requirements document or a customer’s launch vehicle. FLIP, the FLEX Lunar Innovation Platform, is Astrolab’s answer. It is manifested as the primary payload on Astrobotic’s Griffin Mission One to the Nobile region of the lunar south pole, a slot that opened when NASA discontinued VIPER and converted the CLPS delivery into a large-lander demonstration carrying a comparable mass [34], [5]. FLIP is not a scaled model. It carries full-sized batteries, tires, avionics, sensors and software drawn from FLEX, Astrolab’s much larger commercial rover, so that each is exercised at flight scale in the environment FLEX is meant to work in before FLEX exists as flight hardware [33].
The environment sets what the pathfinder has to survive. Lunar regolith is a loose, micrometeorite-gardened layer 10 to 15 cm deep over a densely packed layer, with bulk density rising from about 1.30 g/cm3 at the surface toward 1.92 g/cm3 and shear strength rising roughly linearly with depth [12]. The Apollo-era dataset behind those numbers comes from six Apollo and three Luna sites within about 27 degrees of the equator and says nothing direct about polar soil [11]. Diviner data give a globally averaged thermal inertia of 55 J m-2 K-1 s-1/2 for the upper 4 to 7 cm [13]. Thermal cycling compacts regolith in proportion to the temperature swing, so polar and permanently shadowed soil is expected to be looser than equatorial soil [14]. A south-pole rover therefore drives on soil that no landed mission has measured.
Design space
Section titled “Design space”Four design families cover lunar rovers that have flown or have flown hardware on the ground.
Crewed rovers on flown precedent. The Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle is the only crewed rover that has operated on the Moon. Its wire-mesh wheel was selected over the Bendix hoop-spring wheel on measured endurance and thermal-vacuum life, and its features each answer a documented failure: the woven carcass replaced fatigued looped intersections, the titanium inner frame replaced rubber inner tubes after boulder-field damage, and segmented tread replaced continuous strips [16]. Single-wheel tests in simulant found pull coefficient and power number insensitive to wheel speed and load, with soil strength the controlling variable [17]. The five candidate wheels were compared in fine sand, where none of the original designs could be relied on to climb 35 degrees [18]. Post-mission analysis found the pre-flight energy model overpredicted consumption by a median of about 30 percent, and the report states that no on-Moon measurement of slip, drawbar pull or sinkage exists [19]. The LRV navigation system, a gyro and wheel-odometer dead-reckoning set, kept closure error under 200 m on Apollo 15 and at zero on Apollo 16 and 17 across traverses of 26.6 to 34.8 km [20]. FLEX and its derivative CLV-1 belong to this family [2], [1].
Small, fixed-chassis wheeled prospectors. Scarab, a 280 kg four-wheel rover built at Carnegie Mellon for drilling in polar craters, used a passive rocker pair with an active ride-height adjustment and measured a drawbar pull of 0.7 times vehicle weight in sand at Earth gravity [29]. Its field campaign showed that active body roll control cut downhill slip from 37 to 15 percent at 20 degrees on simulant and that wheel design, not suspension or mass, dominated traction [30]. VIPER, designed to the same polar mission, specified four hazard cameras in the wheel wells to gauge sinkage, a pan-tilt stereo mast and a science floor of water-equivalent hydrogen detectable to 0.5 weight percent down to 80 cm [24]. VIPER never flew. FLIP is the class’s first flight-hardware attempt at a south-pole landing.
Wheel-on-limb vehicles. ATHLETE carries wheels on six-degree-of-freedom limbs so it can lock the wheels and walk out of soft terrain, which lets the wheels be sized for nominal terrain at about 35 kPa ground pressure [27]. Its second generation, Tri-ATHLETE, is a pair of 720 kg three-limbed vehicles that dock on a cargo pallet, and its field trials were capability demonstrations without instrumented mobility measurements [28]. FLEX borrows the limb idea in a lighter form, using articulating limbs to level the chassis and absorb impacts [2]. Neither ATHLETE nor FLEX has operated on the Moon.
Micro-rovers. LEV-2 (SORA-Q), an 8 cm transformable sphere released from SLIM in January 2024, drove away from the lander autonomously, and photogrammetry of two images shows it moved about 0.13 m and rotated about 180 degrees, confirming that its transforming mechanism and eccentric wheel rotation worked on the Moon [32]. That is the one lunar flight result in this group on soft-soil mobility of a novel wheel, and it comes from a vehicle three orders of magnitude lighter than FLIP.
Flight status across the four families differs. The LRV flew and LEV-2 flew. Scarab, Tri-ATHLETE and the VIPER design were ground-tested or specified and not flown. FLEX, CLV-1 and FLIP are in development.
What changed
Section titled “What changed”NASA’s Ignition initiative revised its lunar mobility approach to smaller rovers on an accelerated timeline, and Astrolab adapted FLEX into CLV-1 with a design mass near 950 kg, a 10 km/h top speed and a stowed envelope of about 2 by 2.3 by 2.2 m, under a task order of about 219 million dollars against an IDIQ ceiling of up to 4.6 billion dollars over 13 years, with delivery anticipated by 2028 [1]. FLEX is built around a standardized payload interface with an underslung bay of up to 3 cubic meters, a 3 square meter solar array kept sun-pointed by four-wheel crab steering, and a removable standing crew interface [2]. Astrobotic’s own release once projected FLEX for a Starship landing by late 2026, a date that has since slipped [34]. FLIP sidesteps both timelines. At roughly half a tonne with a 30 kg payload allocation, it is sized to ride a medium-class commercial lander that already exists, converting a component qualification problem into a manifest problem [33], [34]. NASA’s 2025 survey of in-space servicing, assembly and manufacturing lists Astrolab and FLEX among vehicles under development for this class of commercial lunar logistics [4].
Specifications
Section titled “Specifications”| Parameter | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Mass | nearly half a metric ton | [34] |
| Payload capacity | 30 kg | [34] |
| Wheels | hyper-deformable airless tires from Venturi Space | [33], [34], [3] |
| Battery enclosure | custom design by Venturi Space | [33] |
| Lander compatibility | medium-class commercial lunar landers | [34] |
Dimensions, drive speed, slope limit, obstacle capability, generation capacity, battery capacity, night survival, processor and communications parameters are not published. Astrolab publishes no technical documentation for this vehicle beyond its press material, and no peer-reviewed or conference publication about it has appeared.
Mission profile
Section titled “Mission profile”| Parameter | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Lander | Astrobotic Griffin | [34] |
| Landing site | Nobile region, lunar south pole | [34] |
| Delivery | announced for end of 2025, subsequently stated as summer 2026 | [33], [34] |
FLIP took the primary payload position on Griffin Mission One after NASA canceled VIPER before delivery and Astrobotic retained the Griffin lander for a different manifest [34]. Astrobotic’s record of Peregrine Mission 1 is the relevant precedent for what a flight of this lander class has to survive. A single failed helium valve doomed the soft-landing attempt 92 minutes after separation, but the team recovered 10 days 14 hours of cislunar operation and returned data from all nine payloads before a controlled re-entry [5]. Most subsystems flew at flight maturity; terrain relative navigation, landing sensors and legs were not exercised [5]. Griffin Mission One is Astrobotic’s next attempt at the landing Peregrine did not complete.
Mobility
Section titled “Mobility”Four wheels carry hyper-deformable airless tires supplied by Venturi Space, the same wheel design intended for FLEX [33]. Venturi states a duty cycle for the wheel rather than a figure specific to FLIP: four wheels carrying a two-tonne vehicle including payload, deforming to absorb irregularities at 15 km/h, across south-pole temperatures of -240 to +130 C, required to last at least 1,000 km and to resist south-pole radiation, with NASA testing and analysis planned at Glenn Research Center and Johnson Space Center [3]. Every figure is a requirement, with no material identification, deflection, wear or radiation data. The duty cycle describes the larger FLEX vehicle. No wheel test data specific to FLIP’s roughly 500 kg mass has been released, and no speed, gradeability, obstacle height or ground-pressure result appears in Astrolab’s material [33].
A stated duty cycle is not a demonstrated one, and the available reduced-gravity evidence is for other wheels. Parabolic-flight tests of an ExoMars-style prototype in Martian simulant, at constant wheel load against the ground baseline, found drawbar pull fell 20 percent on average in lunar gravity and maximum sinkage rose 38 percent, both statistically significant [6]. The classical stress-distribution theory for rigid wheels, which the LRV program used through Bekker-type models, was itself described by its authors as needing more experimental support [15]. No test of either kind has been published for a hyper-deformable airless tire, so on-Moon performance is an engineering claim, not a measured or simulated result.
Dust sealing of the wheel actuators is named as a test objective of the mission, which places it among the open questions [33]. IPEx, a regolith excavator from the same polar-regolith problem set, qualified one common actuator design for wheel, arm and bucket drum roles through a four-test sequence that raised it to TRL 5, with a felt or Nomex dust seal and an arm actuator that survived 1,402,223 input revolutions [25]. That is a ground qualification, not flight, and it shows the form of evidence a FLIP actuator seal would need.
Power and energy
Section titled “Power and energy”Solar generation with batteries supplied by Venturi Space in a custom enclosure of Venturi’s design, at the same physical size as those intended for FLEX [33]. Generation capacity, battery capacity, night survival and duty cycle are not published for FLIP. Astrolab claims lunar-night survival for the battery enclosure with no energy, insulation or temperature figures [33]. FLEX stows its array during dynamic operation to limit dust accumulation, a measure the FLIP page does not say it shares [2].
Thermal
Section titled “Thermal”Protective coatings for the solar array and the radiator are among the technologies the mission is to test, and performance at south-polar temperatures is named as an objective [33]. No temperature limits, heater strategy or radiator area is published.
The Apollo record sets the stakes [7]. Dust degradation of thermal control is nonlinear, eleven percent areal coverage is enough to double solar absorptance, the Lunar Roving Vehicle batteries exceeded operating temperature limits on Apollo 16 and 17 from this mechanism, and chamber testing underestimated the problem because brushing that cleared dust in a chamber did not clear it on the Moon [7]. Polar regolith conditioning adds a ground-test difficulty: reaching a steady simulant temperature of -130 C in a Glenn chamber took about 48 hours, and four days of vacuum desiccated only the top 20 cm of the bed [31]. FLIP’s coating tests address the same failure mode on hardware that has not yet flown.
Compute and avionics
Section titled “Compute and avionics”Described only as critical avionics systems carried at full size [34]. No processor, memory or radiation tolerance approach is published.
Autonomy
Section titled “Autonomy”Not published. The only on-Moon autonomy datum for a rover is the LEV-2 sequence of self-righting, driving and onboard image selection without ground commands [32], and the only Apollo-era navigation result is the LRV dead-reckoning set [20].
Communications
Section titled “Communications”Not published.
Payload and instruments
Section titled “Payload and instruments”The rover carries a 30 kg payload allocation, part of which Astrolab states will go toward mitigating the risk lunar dust poses to vehicles, structures and spacecraft systems: protective-coating tests on the solar array and radiator, measurement of dust accumulation rate, and new dust-sealing strategies for the wheel actuators [34]. No instrument has been named, and no measurement technique, coating identification or success criterion has been published for any of the three.
The surrounding literature frames what such tests can show. A published taxonomy groups lunar dust countermeasures into four layers, avoiding generation, preventing sticking or entry, removing, and tolerating, and argues that layering several 90-percent-effective measures beats relying on one 99-percent measure [8]. FLIP’s planned tests span prevention by coating and toleration by sealing, and which approach within either layer was chosen has not been disclosed. Adhesion theory says sticking is a removal problem more than a deposition problem, with electrostatic, charge-patch and van der Waals forces dominating at different separations, and the author notes no direct lift-off force measurement exists for real lunar dust [21]. Three-body abrasion tests of aluminum, steel and PMMA against lunar simulants showed hardened 1045 steel resisted all of them, in a pilot method the authors say is not yet a standard [22]. A screening of seven ceramic and cermet coatings for a lander leg found Cr3C2-NiCr and Tribaloy T-800 lost the least thickness under abrasion, with adhesion results that were semi quantitative [23]. These are the ground-test baselines against which a FLIP coating result would be read.
Modes of operation
Section titled “Modes of operation”Not published.
Ground operations
Section titled “Ground operations”Not published.
Technologies developed
Section titled “Technologies developed”The program’s contribution is the pathfinder itself: a deliberately intermediate vehicle that flies the flight-sized subsystems of a larger rover on a lander that already exists, rather than waiting for the launch vehicle the larger rover needs [33]. The subsystems proven this way are the batteries and enclosure, the hyper-deformable airless tires, the avionics, the sensors and software, the protective coatings, and the dust sealing of the wheel actuators.
VIPER is the nearest comparison for the qualification work involved, though it never flew. Its systems integration record documents a 40 km wheel endurance test to failure over simulant and rocks, slip characterization at a dedicated terrain facility, sink-tank testing in glass beads to develop entrapment-escape gaits for soft polar soil, and two rover-egress campaigns with Astrobotic that changed the Griffin rampway design after finding interferences no CAD model had caught [9]. Software cost was a material schedule factor, estimated with a dedicated life-cycle cost model [10]. RASSOR 2.0, the 66 kg excavator that IPEx descends from, shows a different tactic: developing actuators and bucket drums as tested subsystems first so that the chassis became the minimum structure tying them together, with custom actuators more than 50 percent lighter than off-the-shelf units [26]. FLIP’s subsystem-first logic is the same, applied to a flight vehicle.
No ground test result of the VIPER class has been published for FLIP.
What is not established
Section titled “What is not established”Every quantitative figure specific to FLIP comes from the manufacturer or its landing services partner, and no peer-reviewed or conference paper about the vehicle has appeared [33], [34]. Dimensions, drive speed, slope and obstacle limits, generation and battery capacity, night survival and communications parameters are absent. The wheel duty cycle describes the larger FLEX vehicle, and no source states whether the tire design meets it at FLIP’s lower mass [3]. The delivery date has already slipped once, from end of 2025 to summer 2026, and no source reconciles that with Griffin Mission One’s own schedule [33], [34]. Nothing in the corpus describes a FLIP ground test campaign comparable to VIPER’s wheel endurance, slip or egress testing, so whether FLIP was verified to that standard cannot be established [9]. The soil it will drive on is polar, while the geotechnical record comes from equatorial sites [11], [12], and no lunar-gravity wheel-soil measurement exists for an airless hyper-deformable tire [6].
References
- (2026). Astrolab: NASA Selects Astrolab to Provide Lunar Rover for Artemis. astrolab.space/2026/05/26/nasa-selects-astrolab-to-provide-lunar-rove...
BibTeX
@misc{astrolabnasa, title = {Astrolab: NASA Selects Astrolab to Provide Lunar Rover for Artemis}, organization = {astrolab.space}, year = {2026}, url = {https://www.astrolab.space/2026/05/26/nasa-selects-astrolab-to-provide-lunar-rover-for-artemis-astronauts-return-to-the-moon/} } - (2026). Astrolab: FLEX Rover. astrolab.space/flex-rover
BibTeX
@misc{astrolabflex, title = {Astrolab: FLEX Rover}, organization = {astrolab.space}, year = {2026}, url = {https://www.astrolab.space/flex-rover/} } - (2026). Venturi Space: World premiere, Venturi's hyper-deformable lunar wheel. venturi.space/en/article/world-premiere-venturi-hyper-deformable-luna...
BibTeX
@misc{venturispaceworld, title = {Venturi Space: World premiere, Venturi's hyper-deformable lunar wheel}, organization = {venturi.space}, year = {2026}, url = {https://venturi.space/en/article/world-premiere-venturi-hyper-deformable-lunar-wheel/} } - Mulvaney, J., Arney, D., Williams, C., Morel, J., Stockdale, C., Whitlock, C. and Balaji, V. (2025). In-Space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing (ISAM) State of Play, 2025 Edition
. NASA, 20250008988. Source
BibTeX
@techreport{nasa2025space, title = {In-Space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing (ISAM) State of Play, 2025 Edition}, author = {Mulvaney, John and Arney, Dale and Williams, Christina and Morel, Jose and Stockdale, Christopher and Whitlock, Christopher and Balaji, Vishruth}, number = {20250008988}, institution = {NASA}, year = {2025}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20250008988}, abstract = {The future of spaceflight will yield increasingly more ambitious missions to support civil, national security, and commercial space sectors. Achieving some of these missions will not be feasible by launching an integrated, fully functioning system on a single launch vehicle. Future science and human exploration missions will require payloads that are larger than any foreseeable launch vehicle fairing, national security missions will require persistent assets that are mobile and resilient, and commercial space missions will require cost-effective ways to update to the latest technology on orbit. In-space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing (ISAM) can vastly expand the performance, availability, and lifetime of space systems compared to the traditional paradigm of launching an asset with no intent to ever interact with it again. ISAM capabilities foster an ecosystem that changes the space operations paradigm, creating the foundation for sustainable exploration and serving as a multiplier for other capabilities like space logistics, power generation, and reusability. Previous achievements in ISAM have enabled ambitious human and robotic space missions. The assembly, operation, and maintenance of NASA’s International Space Station (ISS); servicing missions to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST); and Northrop Grumman’s Mission Extension Vehicle (MEV) demonstrate the dramatic operational missions that can be achieved using ISAM capabilities. Many current and upcoming flight demonstrations are advancing areas that will enable the next generation of civil, national security, and commercial space missions. This document describes the current state of ISAM missions, activities, and technologiesto the best ability of the authors. Compiling and organizing the available ISAM capabilities will help mission designers incorporate ISAM technologies into their concepts, create the starting point for technology development plans and roadmaps, and provide technologists a survey of the field they are developing. This document divides the ISAM capabilities into 11 functional capability areas that describe the functions or activities that can be performed in space using ISAM.} } - Astrobotic Technology. (2024). Peregrine Mission 1 Post-Mission Report
. Astrobotic Technology. Source
BibTeX
@techreport{astrobotic2024peregrine, title = {Peregrine Mission 1 Post-Mission Report}, author = {{Astrobotic Technology}}, institution = {Astrobotic Technology}, month = {August}, year = {2024}, url = {https://www.astrobotic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/PM1_Post-Mission-Report_2024-1.pdf} } - Niksirat, P., Daca, A. and Skonieczny, K. (2020). The effects of reduced-gravity on planetary rover mobility
. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 7. Source
BibTeX
@article{niksirat2020effects, title = {The effects of reduced-gravity on planetary rover mobility}, author = {Niksirat, Parna and Daca, Adriana and Skonieczny, Krzysztof}, journal = {IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science}, volume = {39}, number = {7}, pages = {797-811}, publisher = {SAGE Publications}, year = {2020}, doi = {10.1177/0278364920913945}, abstract = {One of the major challenges faced by planetary exploration rovers today is the negotiation of difficult terrain, such as fine granular regolith commonly found on the Moon and Mars. Current testing methods on Earth fail to account for the effect of reduced gravity on the soil itself. This work characterizes the effects of reduced gravity on wheel–soil interactions between an ExoMars rover wheel prototype and a martian soil simulant aboard parabolic flights producing effective martian and lunar gravitational accelerations. These experiments are the first to collect wheel–soil interaction imagery and force/torque sensor data alongside wheel sinkage data. Results from reduced-gravity flights are compared with on-ground experiments with all parameters equal, including wheel load, such that the only difference between the experiments is the effect of gravity on the soil itself. In lunar gravity, a statistically significant average reduction in traction of 20% is observed compared with 1 g, and in martian gravity an average traction reduction of 5–10% is observed. Subsurface soil imaging shows that soil mobilization increases as gravity decreases, suggesting a deterioration in soil strength, which could be the cause of the reduction in traction. Statistically significant increases in wheel sinkage in both martian and lunar gravity provide additional evidence for decreased soil strength. All of these observations (decreased traction, increased soil mobilization, and increased sinkage) hinder a rover’s ability to drive, and should be considered when interpreting results from reduced-load mobility tests conducted on Earth.} } - Gaier, J. R. (2007). The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions
. NASA, NASA/TM-2005-213610/REV1. Source
BibTeX
@techreport{gaier2007effects, title = {The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions}, author = {Gaier, James R.}, number = {NASA/TM-2005-213610/REV1}, institution = {NASA}, year = {2007}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20070021819}, abstract = {Mission documents from the six Apollo missions that landed on the lunar surface have been studied in order to catalog the effects of lunar dust on Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) systems, primarily the Apollo surface space suit. It was found that the effects could be sorted into nine categories: vision obscuration, false instrument readings, dust coating and contamination, loss of traction, clogging of mechanisms, abrasion, thermal control problems, seal failures, and inhalation and irritation. Although simple dust mitigation measures were sufficient to mitigate some of the problems (i.e., loss of traction) it was found that these measures were ineffective to mitigate many of the more serious problems (i.e., clogging, abrasion, diminished heat rejection). The severity of the dust problems were consistently underestimated by ground tests, indicating a need to develop better simulation facilities and procedures.} } - Cannon, K. M., Dreyer, C. B., Sowers, G. F., Schmit, J., Nguyen, T., Sanny, K. and Schertz, J. (2022). Working with lunar surface materials: Review and analysis of dust mitigation and regolith conveyance technologies
. Acta Astronautica. Source
BibTeX
@article{cannon2022working, title = {Working with lunar surface materials: Review and analysis of dust mitigation and regolith conveyance technologies}, author = {Cannon, Kevin M. and Dreyer, Christopher B. and Sowers, George F. and Schmit, John and Nguyen, Thao and Sanny, Keoni and Schertz, Joshua}, journal = {Acta Astronautica}, volume = {196}, pages = {259--274}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.04.037}, abstract = {The Moon's dusty surface environment threatens any equipment that operates there, especially for long-duration infrastructure needed for a sustained lunar presence. This is doubly true for systems that convey regolith, which by agitating the soil are certain to generate dust. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of technologies that have been proposed to convey regolith on the lunar surface, and to mitigate against dust hazards that are generated by such transport systems. We define functional taxonomies for both regolith conveyance and dust mitigation, then carry out quantitative trade studies in several categories for each. Examples include passive and active dust mitigation, and horizontal and near vertical conveyance. Conveyance technologies that scored particularly high include wheeled haulers, conveyor belts, and auger/hopper transfer points. High scoring dust mitigation technologies include the lotus leaf passive coating, Electrodynamic Dust Shield, and boots or bellow made of fiberglass fabric. We also explore novel or unconventional concepts and describe how dust mitigation and regolith conveyance can be combined using a systems approach with multiple technologies layered together. The results from the trade studies and the subsequent recommendations constitute a practical guide that can be used for designing and developing systems that must perform efficiently and reliably to carry out useful tasks on the Moon or Mars, such as resource extraction, construction, and additive manufacturing.} } - Andrews, D. (2023). VIPER: Systems Integration Status
. International Astronautical Congress, 20230001799. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{andrews2023viper, title = {VIPER: Systems Integration Status}, author = {Andrews, Daniel}, booktitle = {International Astronautical Congress}, number = {20230001799}, institution = {NASA}, address = {Baku}, year = {2023}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230001799}, abstract = {NASA’s Artemis Program plans to return humans to the Moon for an extended stay. To do so will require substantial resources to sustain that continued human presence, including continuous supplies delivered from the Earth. Given the expense and complexity of resource deliveries from Earth, if some resources were indigenously available, substantial logistical savings could be available by “living off the land”, wherever possible. The LCROSS[1] , LRO and other missions have confirmed the presence of resources such as water-ice and other volatiles in lunar polar regions, so the next step is to understand the scientific nature and physical distribution of those candidate resources. Those local volatiles could be processed into propellants and human life-supporting needs, reducing risk of maintaining a permanent human presence on the Moon. The Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Resource (VIPER) is a surface mobility scientific platform, designed to spend ~100 days mapping and surveying four different Ice Stability Regions to understand the scientific nature and distribution of water and other volatiles. VIPER will also provide scientific mineralogical context of the lunar regolith, such as the presence of silicon and light metals in lunar regolith, providing a composite picture of resource availability and sustainment. This paper will discuss the latest systems-level integration activities by the VIPER team, following our initial introduction to this mission at IAC2021[2] . The VIPER team successfully passed its Systems Integration Review (SIR) in late-2022, and in early 2023, began system-level surface segment (rover) flight hardware assembly. VIPER is managed within NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD), utilizing the Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) lunar delivery model with partner, Astrobotic, Inc.} } - Stukes, S. A., Hihn, J., Allan, M., Bajjalieh, G., Deans, M., Fong, T. and Utz, H. (2021). An Innovative Approach to Modeling VIPER Rover Software Life Cycle Cost
. IEEE Aerospace Conference. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{stukes2021innovative, title = {An Innovative Approach to Modeling VIPER Rover Software Life Cycle Cost}, author = {Stukes, Sherry A and Hihn, Jairus and Allan, Mark and Bajjalieh, Georgia and Deans, Matthew and Fong, Terry and Utz, Hans}, booktitle = {IEEE Aerospace Conference}, publisher = {IEEE}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1109/aero50100.2021.9438347}, abstract = {NASA's “Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover” (VIPER) will be the first robotic mission to prospect for water ice near the south pole of the Moon in late 2023 on a 100-Earth-day mission. The information that the VIPER rover provides will help improve understanding of the composition, distribution, and accessibility of Lunar polar volatiles and will help determine how the Moon's resources can support future human space exploration. VIPER, however, represents a radical departure from the way that NASA has traditionally developed planetary robotic missions. A key consequence of these differences is that estimating the cost of VIPER's rover software is challenging and complex. For example, VIPER is being developed using management procedures typically applied to NASA research and technology projects, rather than space flight programs. In addition, key portions of the rover's software are being designed as ground software to run on mission control computers (rather than onboard the rover as flight software as with prior planetary missions) taking advantage of continuous, interactive data communications between the Moon and Earth and higher performance computing available on the ground. Moreover, the rover's software is being engineered using Agile software development practices and incorporates a significant amount of open-source code, rather than following traditional (spiral, waterfall, etc.) development methods and in-house code. In this paper, we present an innovative process to estimate the life cycle cost of VIPER's rover software. We first describe how we modeled the architecture and code counts for three software elements: Rover Flight Software (RFSW), Rover Ground Software (RGSW), and Rover Simulation Software (RSIM). We then discuss key challenges and unique aspects of our approach, such as the lack of Lunar rover analogies, the need to integrate and test large open source software, and the strategies developed to account for use of non-space flight management practices and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. We conclude with a summary of our results, including cumulative distribution, nearest neighbors and cluster analysis, as well as heuristics used to confirm the reasonableness of the cost estimate.} } - Heiken, G. H., Vaniman, D. T. and French, B. M. (1991). Lunar Sourcebook: A User's Guide to the Moon
. Endeavour. Source
BibTeX
@book{heiken1991lunar, title = {Lunar Sourcebook: A User's Guide to the Moon}, author = {Heiken, Grant H. and Vaniman, David T. and French, Bevan M.}, journal = {Endeavour}, volume = {16}, pages = {96}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, year = {1991}, doi = {10.1016/0160-9327(92)90014-g} } - Connolly, J. F. and Carrier, W. D. (2023). An Engineering Guide to Lunar Geotechnical Properties
. IEEE Aerospace Conference. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{connolly2023engineering, title = {An Engineering Guide to Lunar Geotechnical Properties}, author = {Connolly, John F. and Carrier, W. David}, booktitle = {IEEE Aerospace Conference}, pages = {1-9}, address = {Big Sky, Montana}, year = {2023}, doi = {10.1109/aero55745.2023.10115961}, abstract = {The renewed interest in returning human and robotic explorers to the lunar surface has identified a need for a renewed understanding of lunar geotechnical properties related to landing, exploration, excavation, and construction activities on the lunar surface. This paper summarizes measurements conducted during US and Russian/Soviet landed missions as well as experiments performed on returned samples to establish fundamental geotechnical properties such as particle size distribution, particle shape, bulk density, shear strength, cohesion and bearing strength. While many of these properties are well known, how they vary with increased lunar soil depth is less understood, and those properties that vary significantly as a function of depth are explored in additional detail. Selected examples discuss mechanical excavation forces, rocket exhaust erosion forces, and the preparation of launch/landing pad surfaces, with the goal of a better understanding of lunar soil geotechnical properties that apply to large-scale exploration of the lunar surface and dictate the design of future exploration systems.} } - Hayne, P. O., Bandfield, J. L., Siegler, M. A., Vasavada, A. R., Ghent, R. R., Williams, J.-P., Greenhagen, B. T., Aharonson, O., Elder, C. M., Lucey, P. G. and Paige, D. A. (2017). Global Regolith Thermophysical Properties of the Moon From the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment
. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 12. Source
BibTeX
@article{hayne2017global, title = {Global Regolith Thermophysical Properties of the Moon From the Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment}, author = {Hayne, Paul O. and Bandfield, Joshua L. and Siegler, Matthew A. and Vasavada, Ashwin R. and Ghent, Rebecca R. and Williams, Jean-Pierre and Greenhagen, Benjamin T. and Aharonson, Oded and Elder, Catherine M. and Lucey, Paul G. and Paige, David A.}, journal = {Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets}, volume = {122}, number = {12}, pages = {2371--2400}, year = {2017}, doi = {10.1002/2017je005387}, abstract = {Abstract We used infrared data from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment to globally map thermophysical properties of the Moon's regolith fines layer. Thermal conductivity varies from 7.4 × 10 −4 W m −1 K −1 at the surface to 3.4 × 10 −3 W m −1 K −1 at depths of ~1 m, given density values of 1,100 kg m −3 at the surface to 1,800 kg m −3 at 1 m depth. On average, the scale height of these profiles is ~7 cm, corresponding to a thermal inertia of 55 ± 2 J m −2 K −1 s −1/2 at 273 K, relevant to the diurnally active near‐surface layer, ~4–7 cm. The temperature dependence of thermal conductivity and heat capacity leads to an ~2 times diurnal variation in thermal inertia at the equator. On global scales, the regolith fines are remarkably uniform, implying rapid homogenization by impact gardening of this layer on timescales <1 Gyr. Regional‐ and local‐scale variations show prominent impact features <1 Gyr old, including higher thermal inertia (> 100 J m −2 K −1 s −1/2 ) in the interiors and ejecta of Copernican‐aged impact craters and lower thermal inertia (< 50 J m −2 K −1 s −1/2 ) within the lunar cold spots identified by Bandfield et al. (2014). Observed trends in ejecta thermal inertia provide a potential tool for age dating craters of previously unknown age, complementary to the approach suggested by Ghent et al. (2014). Several anomalous regions are identified in the global 128 pixels per degree maps presented here, including a high‐thermal inertia deposit near the antipode of Tycho crater.} } - Metzger, P. T., Anderson, S. and Colaprete, A. (2018). Experiments Indicate Regolith is Looser in the Lunar Polar Regions than at the Lunar Landing Sites
. ASCE Earth and Space Conference. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{metzger2018experiments, title = {Experiments Indicate Regolith is Looser in the Lunar Polar Regions than at the Lunar Landing Sites}, author = {Metzger, Philip T. and Anderson, Serena and Colaprete, Anthony}, booktitle = {ASCE Earth and Space Conference}, pages = {79-85}, publisher = {American Society of Civil Engineers}, year = {2018}, doi = {10.1061/9780784481899.009}, abstract = {Since the Apollo program or earlier it has been widely believed that the lunar regolith was compacted through vibrations including nearby impact events, thermal stress release in the regolith, deep moon quakes, and shallow moon quakes. Experiments have shown that vibrations both compact and re-loosen regolith as a function of depth in the lunar soil column and amplitude of the vibrational acceleration. Experiments have also identified another process that is extremely effective at compacting regolith: the expansion and contraction of individual regolith grains due to thermal cycling in the upper part of the regolith where the diurnal thermal wave exists. Remote sensing data sets from the Moon suggest that the soil is less compacted in regions where there is less thermal cycling, including infrared emissions measured by the Diviner radiometer on the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). Here, we performed additional experiments in thermal cycling simulated lunar regolith and confirm that it is an effective compaction mechanism and may explain the remote sensing data. This creates a consistent picture that the soil really is looser in the upper layers in polar regions, which may be a challenge for rovers that must drive in the looser soil.} } - Wong, J. Y. and Reece, A. R. (1967). Prediction of Rigid Wheel Performance Based on the Analysis of Soil-Wheel Stresses
. Journal of Terramechanics, 2. Source
BibTeX
@article{wong1967prediction, title = {Prediction of Rigid Wheel Performance Based on the Analysis of Soil-Wheel Stresses}, author = {Wong, J. Y. and Reece, A. R.}, journal = {Journal of Terramechanics}, volume = {4}, number = {2}, pages = {7--25}, year = {1967}, doi = {10.1016/0022-4898(67)90047-x} } - Asnani, V., Delap, D. and Creager, C. (2009). The Development of Wheels for the Lunar Roving Vehicle
. Journal of Terramechanics, NASA/TM-2009-215798, 20100000019. Source
BibTeX
@article{asnani2009development, title = {The Development of Wheels for the Lunar Roving Vehicle}, author = {Asnani, Vivake and Delap, Damon and Creager, Colin}, journal = {Journal of Terramechanics}, volume = {46}, number = {NASA/TM-2009-215798, 20100000019}, pages = {89-103}, institution = {NASA Glenn Research Center}, year = {2009}, doi = {10.1016/j.jterra.2009.02.005}, abstract = {The Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) was developed for NASA s Apollo program so astronauts could cover a greater range on the lunar surface, carry more science instruments, and return more soil and rock samples than by foot. Because of the unique lunar environment, the creation of flexible wheels was the most challenging and time consuming aspect of the LRV development. Wheels developed for previous lunar systems were not sufficient for use with this manned vehicle; therefore, several new designs were created and tested. Based on criteria set by NASA, the choices were narrowed down to two: the wire mesh wheel developed by General Motors (GM), and the hoop spring wheel developed by the Bendix Corporation. Each of these underwent intensive mechanical, material, and terramechanical analyses, and in the end, the wire mesh wheel was chosen for the LRV. Though the wire mesh wheel was determined to be the best choice for its particular application, it may be insufficient towards achieving the objectives of future lunar missions that could require higher tractive capability, increased weight capacity, or extended life. Therefore lessons learned from the original LRV wheel development and suggestions for future Moon wheel projects are offered.} } - Melzer, K.-J. (1971). Performance of the Boeing LRV wheels in a lunar soil simulant. Report 2: Effects of speed, Wheel load, and soil
. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, NASA-CR-129612. Source
BibTeX
@techreport{melzer1971performance, title = {Performance of the Boeing LRV wheels in a lunar soil simulant. Report 2: Effects of speed, Wheel load, and soil}, author = {Melzer, Klaus-Jurgen}, number = {NASA-CR-129612}, institution = {U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station}, year = {1971}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730004536}, abstract = {Two nearly identical Boeing-GM wire-mesh Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) wheels were laboratory tested in a lunar soil simulant to determine the influence of wheel speed and acceleration, wheel load, presence of a fender, travel direction, and soil strength on the wheel performance. Constant-slip and three types of programmed-slip tests were conducted with a single-wheel dynamometer system. Test results indicated that performance of single LRV wheels in terms of pull coefficient, power number, and efficiency were not influenced by wheel speed and acceleration, travel direction, the presence of a fender, or wheel load. Of these variables, only load influenced sinkage, which increased with increasing load. For a given slip, the pull coefficient and power number increased with increasing soil strength. However, for a given pull coefficient or slope, slip was less in firmer soil; thus, the power number decreased and efficiency increased with increasing soil strength.} } - Freitag, D. R., Green, A. J. and Melzer, K.-J. (1970). Performance Evaluation of Wheels for Lunar Vehicles (Summary Report)
. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Technical Report M-70-2. Source
BibTeX
@techreport{freitag1970performance, title = {Performance Evaluation of Wheels for Lunar Vehicles (Summary Report)}, author = {Freitag, Dean R. and Green, Andrew J. and Melzer, Klaus-Jurgen}, number = {Technical Report M-70-2}, institution = {U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station}, year = {1970}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19700027358}, abstract = {Performance evaluation of lunar surface vehicle wheels in fine sand} } - Costes, N. C., Farmer, J. E. and George, E. B. (1972). Mobility Performance of the Lunar Roving Vehicle: Terrestrial Studies --- Apollo 15 Results
. Conference of the International, NASA TR R-401, 19730008090. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{costes1972mobility, title = {Mobility Performance of the Lunar Roving Vehicle: Terrestrial Studies --- Apollo 15 Results}, author = {Costes, Nicholas C. and Farmer, John E. and George, Edwin B.}, booktitle = {Conference of the International}, number = {NASA TR R-401, 19730008090}, institution = {NASA Marshall Space Flight Center}, address = {Stockholm and Kiruna}, month = {12}, year = {1972}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19730008090}, abstract = {The constriants of the Apollo 15 mission dictated that the average and limiting performance capabilities of the first manned lunar roving vehicle be known or estimated within narrow margins. Extensive studies were conducted and are compared with the actual performance of the lunar roving vehicle during the Apollo 15 mission. From this comparison, conclusions are drawn relating to the capabilities and limitation of current terrestrial methodology in predicting the mobility performance of lunar roving vehicles under in-situ environmental conditions, and recommendations are offered concerning the performance of surface vehicles on future missions related to lunar or planetary exploration.} } - Smith, E. C. and Mustin, W. C. (1973). Lunar Roving Vehicle Navigation System Performance Review
. NASA, NASA-TN-. Source
BibTeX
@techreport{anon1973lunar, title = {Lunar Roving Vehicle Navigation System Performance Review}, author = {Smith, Earnest C. and Mustin, William C.}, number = {NASA-TN-}, institution = {NASA}, year = {1973}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19740003321}, abstract = {The design and operation of the lunar roving vehicle (LRV) navigation system are briefly described. The basis for the premission LRV navigation error analysis is explained and an example included. The real time mission support operations philosophy is presented. The LRV navigation system operation and accuracy during the lunar missions are evaluated.} } - Walton, O. R. (2007). Adhesion of Lunar Dust
. NASA Glenn Research Center, NASA/TM-2007-214430, 20070020448. Source
BibTeX
@techreport{walton2007adhesion, title = {Adhesion of Lunar Dust}, author = {Walton, Otis R.}, number = {NASA/TM-2007-214430, 20070020448}, institution = {NASA Glenn Research Center}, year = {2007}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20070020448}, abstract = {This paper reviews the physical characteristics of lunar dust and the effects of various fundamental forces acting on dust particles on surfaces in a lunar environment. There are transport forces and adhesion forces after contact. Mechanical forces (i.e., from rover wheels, astronaut boots and rocket engine blast) and static electric effects (from UV photo-ionization and/or tribo-electric charging) are likely to be the major contributors to the transport of dust particles. If fine regolith particles are deposited on a surface, then surface energy-related (e.g., van der Walls) adhesion forces and static-electric-image forces are likely to be the strongest contributors to adhesion. Some measurement techniques are offered to quantify the strength of adhesion forces. And finally some dust removal techniques are discussed.} } - Kobrick, R. L., Budinski, K. G., Street, K. W. J. and Klaus, D. M. (2010). Three-Body Abrasion Testing Using Lunar Dust Simulants to Evaluate Surface System Materials
. International Conference on Environmental Systems, NASA/TM-2010-216781. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{kobrick2010three, title = {Three-Body Abrasion Testing Using Lunar Dust Simulants to Evaluate Surface System Materials}, author = {Kobrick, Ryan L. and Budinski, Kenneth G. and Street, Kenneth W., Jr. and Klaus, David M.}, booktitle = {International Conference on Environmental Systems}, number = {NASA/TM-2010-216781}, institution = {NASA}, year = {2010}, doi = {10.2514/6.2010-6077}, abstract = {Numerous unexpected operational issues relating to the abrasive nature of lunar dust, such as scratched visors and spacesuit pressure seal leaks, were encountered during the Apollo missions. To avoid reoccurrence of these unexpected detrimental equipment problems on future missions to the Moon, a series of two- and three-body abrasion tests were developed and conducted in order to begin rigorously characterizing the effect of lunar dust abrasiveness on candidate surface system materials. Two-body scratch tests were initially performed to examine fundamental interactions of a single particle on a flat surface. These simple and robust tests were used to establish standardized measurement techniques for quantifying controlled volumetric wear. Subsequent efforts described in the paper involved three-body abrasion testing designed to be more representative of actual lunar interactions. For these tests, a new tribotester was developed to expose samples to a variety of industrial abrasives and lunar simulants. The work discussed in this paper describes the three-body hardware setup consisting of a rotating rubber wheel that applies a load on a specimen as a loose abrasive is fed into the system. The test methodology is based on ASTM International (ASTM) B611, except it does not mix water with the abrasive. All tests were run under identical conditions. Abraded material specimens included poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), hardened 1045 steel, 6061-T6 aluminum (Al) and 1018 steel. Abrasives included lunar mare simulant JSC-1A-F (nominal size distribution), sieved JSC-1A-F (μm particle diameter), lunar highland simulant NU-LHT-2M, alumina (average diameter of 50 μm used per ASTM G76), and silica (50/70 mesh used per ASTM G65). The measured mass loss from each specimen was converted using standard densities to determine total wear volume in cm3. Abrasion was dominated by the alumina and the simulants were only similar to the silica (i.e., sand) on the softer materials of aluminum and PMMA. The nominal JSC-1A-F consistently showed more abrasion wear than the sieved version of the simulant. The lunar dust displayed abrasivity to all of the test materials, which are likely to be used in lunar landing equipment. Based on this test experience and pilot results obtained, recommendations are made for systematic abrasion testing of candidate materials intended for use in lunar exploration systems and in other environments with similar dust challenges.} } - Wiesner, V. L., Wohl, C. J., King, G. C., Gordon, K. L., Das, L. and Hernandez, J. J. (2023). Protective Coatings for Lunar Dust Tolerance
. NASA, NASA/TM-20230003195. Source
BibTeX
@techreport{wiesner2023protective, title = {Protective Coatings for Lunar Dust Tolerance}, author = {Wiesner, Valerie L. and Wohl, Christopher J. and King, Glen C. and Gordon, Keith L. and Das, Lopamudra and Hernandez, Jonathan J.}, number = {NASA/TM-20230003195}, institution = {NASA}, year = {2023}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20230003195}, abstract = {Materials capable of withstanding the harsh lunar environment are critically needed to support long duration, sustainable missions on the Moon’s surface. Lunar dust significantly threatens the durability and reusability of components and vehicles due to possessing a fine, jagged morphology and highly abrasive nature. These characteristics result in the particles eroding, adhering and/or embedding onto component surfaces and into device confined geometries (e.g., gear housing, interlocking systems, etc.) potentially leading to premature failure. The aim of this study is to identify and characterize wear-resistant commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) materials, including advanced ceramics, for use as protective coatings to minimize abrasion and adhesion caused by lunar dust. Preliminary testing that mimics various aspects of lunar dust degradation, such as abrasive wear and adhesion, suggests that COTS ceramic coatings can improve lunar dust tolerance and protect underlying metallic substrates.} } - Colaprete, A. (2021). Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER)
. NASA, 20210015009. Source
BibTeX
@techreport{colaprete2021volatiles, title = {Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (VIPER)}, author = {Colaprete, Anthony}, number = {20210015009}, institution = {NASA}, year = {2021}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210015009}, abstract = {VIPER is a lunar volatiles detection and measurement mission that will be launched as a payload on the CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) provided Astrobotic's Griffin lander to the lunar south polar region. VIPER includes a suite of rover-mounted instruments that will conduct science and map volatiles (especially hydrogen-bearing volatiles). The VIPER rover is also designed to excavate volatiles such as hydrogen, oxygen, and water from the Moon. After landing the VIPER rover will travel to investigate a range of Ice Stability Regions (ISRs) across scales from 100s of meters to kilometers and conduct surface and subsurface assessment of lunar water and other volatiles. The VIPER science mission team will use the instrument data to characterize the nature of the volatiles in the area and to extrapolate these data to create global lunar water resource maps. The expected lunar surface mission duration is up to four lunar days, with active surface operations during the periods when both Sun exposure and direct to Earth (DTE) communication conditions overlap. When comm and Sun are not both available, VIPER will go into ‘Safe Haven operations’ and maintain survival temperatures until Sun and comm return. The rover is controlled in near-real time and science decisions are made both tactically (short-term) and strategically (longer-term) to achieve the mission science success criteria and objectives.} } - Schuler, J. M., Smith, J. D., Nick, A. J., Buckles, B. C., Dyas, J. E., Ortega, V. V., Cloud, J. M., Dokos, A. G., Zhang, E. L., Wang, J. J., Baron, M. A., Muller, T. J., Clark, C. J. and Howe, M. W. (2024). ISRU Pilot Excavator (IPEx) Technology Readiness Level 5 Design Overview
. AIAA AVIATION Forum and ASCEND, 20240008162. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{schuler2024isru, title = {ISRU Pilot Excavator (IPEx) Technology Readiness Level 5 Design Overview}, author = {Schuler, Jason M. and Smith, Jonathan D. and Nick, Andrew J. and Buckles, Bradley C. and Dyas, Jeffrey E. and Ortega, Victoria V. and Cloud, Joseph M. and Dokos, Adam G. and Zhang, Elizabeth L. and Wang, Jerry J. and Baron, Michael A. and Muller, Thomas J. and Clark, Casey J. and Howe, Musashi W.}, booktitle = {AIAA AVIATION Forum and ASCEND}, number = {20240008162}, institution = {NASA}, year = {2024}, doi = {10.2514/6.2024-4890}, abstract = {This paper details the mechanical and mechatronic design of the Technology Readiness Level (TRL)-5 In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Pilot Excavator (IPEx). IPEx is a robotic excavator designed for a technology demonstration of regolith mining in the lunar south pole region. The novel design uses pairs of counter-acting excavation tools called bucket drums, that dig at the same time in opposing directions to reduce the reaction force needed, thereby enabling mining with a small, low-mass, robotic system. IPEx builds on the prior work of the Regolith Advanced Surface Systems Operations Robot (RASSOR), which is the TRL-4 implementation of this concept. The TRL-5 IPEx subsystems that are discussed in this paper include: Regolith Delivery Subsystem (RDS), Mobility Subsystem (MS), Cameras and Dust Mitigation Subsystem (CDMS), and Thermal Control Subsystem (TCS). Each subsystem is described in detail with rationale for design selections. Dust tolerance is a key feature for IPEx, and this paper details a thermal control system with an actuated radiator cover and phase change material as well as camera modules with removable electrodynamic dust shields (EDS). Additional components such as actuators, wheels, and bucket drums are discussed in detail. Due to their complexity, the avionics and software subsystems will be discussed in a separate publication.} } - Mueller, R. P., Smith, J. D., Schuler, J. M., Nick, A. J., Gelino, N. J., Leucht, K. W., Townsend, I. I. and Dokos, A. G. (2016). Design of an Excavation Robot: Regolith Advanced Surface Systems Operations Robot (RASSOR) 2.0
. ASCE Earth and Space Conference, 20210011366. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{mueller2016design, title = {Design of an Excavation Robot: Regolith Advanced Surface Systems Operations Robot (RASSOR) 2.0}, author = {Mueller, Robert P. and Smith, Jonathan D. and Schuler, Jason M. and Nick, Andrew J. and Gelino, Nathan J. and Leucht, Kurt W. and Townsend, Ivan I. and Dokos, Adam G.}, booktitle = {ASCE Earth and Space Conference}, number = {20210011366}, pages = {163-174}, institution = {NASA}, year = {2016}, doi = {10.1061/9780784479971.018}, abstract = {To continue on a sustainable and flexible path, NASA needs to address the challenge of collecting and moving large amounts of regolith at the destination. Acquiring the water resources on Mars will require mining significant quantities of regolith, and this is not possible with the state-of-the-art low mass excavation systems. Low gravity environments (Mars = 3/8G) and launch mass restrictions limit the traction and the resulting reaction force of the vehicle, making current terrestrial techniques impractical. This project addressed this challenge by developing a completely new technology that can mine large quantities of regolith on Mars. Recent measurements by the “Curiosity” rover on Mars have found that the regolith contains ~2% water by weight globally, ~4% in Jezero Crater (Human Architecture Team’s reference landing site), and much more at the poles. RASSOR 2.0 is a planetary excavator, which has a mass of 66 kg, with a 0.38 kg vehicle mass per kilogram, per hour of excavation rate and power usage of 4 W per kg of regolith excavation rate. A single RASSOR 2.0 can excavate a minimum of 2.7 metric tons of regolith per day. This is accomplished by using counteracting excavation forces on two opposing digging implements called bucket drums and an autonomous mining control system. This work has addressed several major research areas outlined in the NASA Technology Area (TA) 04 Robotics and Autonomous Systems and TA 07 Human Destination Systems roadmaps. This project started at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 4 as a low fidelity “proof of concept” prototype which has successfully demonstrated basic regolith simulant excavation functionality in a lab-scale gravity off load test. The foundational technology described here was awarded US patent number: US 9027265 for a “Zero horizontal reaction force excavator” on May 12, 2015.} } - Wilcox, B. H. (2007). ATHLETE: A Mobility and Manipulation System for the Moon
. IEEE Aerospace Conference. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{wilcox2007mobility, title = {ATHLETE: A Mobility and Manipulation System for the Moon}, author = {Wilcox, Brian H.}, booktitle = {IEEE Aerospace Conference}, pages = {1-10}, year = {2007}, doi = {10.1109/aero.2007.352726}, abstract = {A robotic vehicle called ATHLETE - the all-terrain, hex-limbed, extra-terrestrial explorer is described, along with initial results of field tests of two prototype vehicles. This vehicle concept is capable of efficient rolling mobility on moderate terrain and walking mobility on extreme terrain. Each limb has a quick-disconnect tool adapter so that it can perform general-purpose handling, assembly, maintenance, and servicing tasks using any or all of the limbs.} } - Heverly, M., Matthews, J., Frost, M. and McQuin, C. (2010). Development of the Tri-ATHLETE Lunar Vehicle Prototype
. Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, NASA/CP--216272. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{heverly2010development, title = {Development of the Tri-ATHLETE Lunar Vehicle Prototype}, author = {Heverly, Matt and Matthews, Jaret and Frost, Matt and McQuin, Chris}, booktitle = {Aerospace Mechanisms Symposium, NASA/CP--216272}, pages = {317--326}, year = {2010}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20100021930}, abstract = {The Tri-ATHLETE (All Terrain Hex Limed Extra Terrestrial Explorer) vehicle is the second generation of a wheel-on-limb vehicle being developed to support the return of humans to the lunar surface. This paper describes the design, assembly, and test of the Tri-ATHLETE robotic system with a specific emphasis on the limb joint actuators. The design and implementation of the structural components is discussed, and a novel and low cost approach to approximating flight-like cabling is also presented. The paper concludes with a discussion of the "second system effect" and other lessons learned as well as results from a three week long field trial of the vehicle in the Arizona desert.} } - Bartlett, P., Wettergreen, D. and Whittaker, W. L. (2008). Design of the Scarab Rover for Mobility and Drilling in the Lunar Cold Traps
. International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{bartlett2008design, title = {Design of the Scarab Rover for Mobility and Drilling in the Lunar Cold Traps}, author = {Bartlett, Paul and Wettergreen, David and Whittaker, William L.}, booktitle = {International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space}, address = {Los Angeles, California}, year = {2008}, url = {https://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/2008/2/08isairas.scarab.bartlett.pdf} } - Wettergreen, D., Moreland, S., Skonieczny, K., Jonak, D., Kohanbash, D. and Teza, J. (2009). Design and Experimentation of a Rover Concept for Lunar Crater Resource Survey
. AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{wettergreen2009design, title = {Design and Experimentation of a Rover Concept for Lunar Crater Resource Survey}, author = {Wettergreen, David and Moreland, Scott and Skonieczny, Krzysztof and Jonak, Dominic and Kohanbash, David and Teza, James}, booktitle = {AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition}, year = {2009}, doi = {10.2514/6.2009-1206}, abstract = {Scarab is a prospecting rover for lunar missions to survey resources, particularly water ice, in polar craters. It is designed for the deployment of a deep coring drill and for transport of soil analysis instruments. Its chassis can transform to stabilize the drill in contact with the ground and can also adjust to ascend and descent steep slopes of unconsolidated soil. Additional features include a compact body for better thermal regulation, laser scanners for dark navigation, and power system designed for a persistent, low-capacity source. Scarab was prototyped at the Robotics Institute, has undergone mobility testing in soils laboratories and field sites leading up to an integrated system test including the RESOLVE drill and instrument suite at the PISCES lunar analogue site on Mauna Kea in Hawaii} } - Kleinhenz, J. (2014). Lunar Polar Environmental Testing: Regolith Simulant Conditioning
. Symposium on Space Resource Utilization, 20140012567. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{kleinhenz2014lunar, title = {Lunar Polar Environmental Testing: Regolith Simulant Conditioning}, author = {Kleinhenz, Julie}, booktitle = {Symposium on Space Resource Utilization}, number = {20140012567}, institution = {NASA}, year = {2014}, doi = {10.2514/6.2014-0689}, abstract = {As ISRU system development approaches flight fidelity, there is a need to test hardware in relevant environments. Extensive laboratory and field testing have involved relevant soil (lunar regolith simulants), but the current design iterations necessitate relevant pressure and temperature conditions. Including significant quantities of lunar regolith simulant in a thermal vacuum chamber poses unique challenges. These include facility operational challenges (dust tolerant hardware) and difficulty maintaining a pre-prepared soil state during pump down (consolidation state, moisture retention).For ISRU purposes, the regolith at the lunar poles will be of most interest due to the elevated water content. To test at polar conditions, the regolith simulant must be doped with water to an appropriate percentage and then chilled to cryogenic temperatures while exposed to vacuum conditions. A 1m tall, 28cm diameter bin of simulant was developed for testing these simulant preparation and drilling operations. The bin itself was wrapped with liquid nitrogen cooling loops (100K) so that the simulant bed reached an average temperature of 140K at vacuum. Post-test sampling was used to determine desiccation of the bed due to vacuum exposure. Depth dependent moisture data is presented from frozen and thawed soil samples.Following simulant only evacuation tests, drill hardware was incorporated into the vacuum chamber to test auguring techniques in the frozen soil at thermal vacuum conditions. The focus of this testing was to produce cuttings piles for a newly developed spectrometer to evaluate. This instrument, which is part of the RESOLVE program science hardware, detects water signatures from surface regolith. The drill performance, behavior of simulant during drilling, and characteristics of the cuttings piles will be offered.} } - JAXA, TOMY Company, Sony Group Corporation and Doshisha University. (2026). Lunar demonstration results of the transformable lunar robot LEV-2 published in Science Robotics. jaxa.jp/press/2026/06/20260618-1_j.html
BibTeX
@misc{jaxa2026lunar, title = {Lunar demonstration results of the transformable lunar robot LEV-2 published in Science Robotics}, author = {{JAXA} and {TOMY Company} and {Sony Group Corporation} and {Doshisha University}}, organization = {jaxa.jp}, year = {2026}, url = {https://www.jaxa.jp/press/2026/06/20260618-1_j.html} } - (2026). Astrolab: FLIP Rover. astrolab.space/flip-rover
BibTeX
@misc{astrolabflip, title = {Astrolab: FLIP Rover}, organization = {astrolab.space}, year = {2026}, url = {https://www.astrolab.space/flip-rover/} } - (2025). Astrobotic: Astrolab's FLIP rover joins Astrobotic's Griffin-1 to the Moon. astrobotic.com/astrolabs-flip-rover-joins-astrobotics-griffin-1-to-th...
BibTeX
@misc{astroboticastrolabs, title = {Astrobotic: Astrolab's FLIP rover joins Astrobotic's Griffin-1 to the Moon}, organization = {astrobotic.com}, year = {2025}, url = {https://www.astrobotic.com/astrolabs-flip-rover-joins-astrobotics-griffin-1-to-the-moon/} }