Infrastructure Pilot Excavator
Program pages NASA: Infrastructure Pilot Excavator
NASA/Frank Micheaux. Public domain (NASA / US government work).
Overview
Section titled “Overview”IPEx is a lunar regolith excavator and hauler built at NASA KSC. It digs with two counter-rotating bucket drums, carries the load in those same drums, and drives it to a delivery point, so one vehicle does the work that terrestrial practice splits between an excavator and a truck.
It is the flight-directed successor to RASSOR, the KSC bucket-drum testbed that established the counter-rotating architecture at TRL 4 [5]. The published literature calls the program the ISRU Pilot Excavator; the NASA program page now calls it the Infrastructure Pilot Excavator and keeps the IPEx acronym [24]. A parallel outreach project built Mini RASSOR, an educational scale model, at the same KSC lab that carried the wheel concept through several iterations on the way to the flight design [9].
Specifications
Section titled “Specifications”| Parameter | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Mass class | 30 kg | [2] |
| Volumetric scale against RASSOR 2.0 | 50 to 70 percent | [4] |
| Locomotion | four-wheel skid steer | [1] |
| Drive speed, nominal | 30 cm/s | [1] |
| Drive speed, demonstrated maximum | 40 cm/s | [3] |
| Obstacle height | 7.5 cm | [1] |
| Slope limit | 15 degrees | [1] |
As of mid 2024 the TRL 5 design was about 95 percent complete and 90 percent fabricated, with TRL 6 the next target [1]; a five-day continuous ground demonstration in August 2024 established TRL 5 [3]. The program target is a TRL 6 excavator ready for lunar demonstration.
Mission profile
Section titled “Mission profile”No launch has been assigned.
| Parameter | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Regolith to be moved | 10,000 kg in one lunar day | [1], [2], [24] |
| Surface duration | 11 Earth days | [1], [2] |
| Haul distance | 100 m | [2] |
| Traverse total | 70 km | [1] |
| Excavation rate required | 42 kg/h, which is near-continuous cycling over the 11 days | [1], [2] |
To supply that much regolith the vehicle has to drive further, traverse the same ground more often, and excavate more than any planetary robot flown to date [1]. Prior lunar sample return collected tens of kilograms, against the 10,000 kg IPEx is sized for [24]. The closest flown extraterrestrial digging precedent is the Phoenix lander arm, which executed 53 dig sequences across 10 trenching areas in 149 sols and delivered 18 samples to instruments [13]; it moved samples, not bulk regolith.
Architecture
Section titled “Architecture”IPEx uses two sets of bucket drums, one either side of the chassis, digging simultaneously in opposing directions, so the horizontal digging reactions cancel and excavation force is reacted through the structure rather than through traction [2], [4]. Regolith enters through scoops around the drum exterior and is retained by an internal baffle system; reversing drum rotation discharges it. In-situ lunar soil relative density is about 65 percent in the top 15 cm and exceeds 90 percent below 30 cm [8], so digging forces remain substantial at one sixth weight. Lunar regolith cohesion ranges from 0.1 to 1 kPa and friction angle from 30 to 50 degrees [12], so the ground-test results below depend on the simulant used; the simulant standardization workshop that set the root and derivative framework cites Apollo rover wheel slip and sinkage, tool penetration limits and radiator dust accumulation as failures that testing against traceable simulants is meant to catch [12]. A 2025 ASTM characterization of six simulants at about 90 percent relative density found that matching the lunar average particle size distribution does not make shear strength or compressibility match, and that cohesion and friction angle are only meaningful with the density state they were measured at [16].
The vehicle both excavates and hauls, carrying regolith in the drums to a delivery point rather than requiring a separate transport vehicle [2]. The RASSOR patent covering the zero horizontal reaction force architecture is US 9,027,265, granted 12 May 2015 [5]. NASA’s 2020 public bucket-drum design challenge set constraints of comparable order to the flight drum: at most 175 mm of scoop engaged at once, 5 kg drum mass, 450 mm diameter, 360 mm length and at least 17.6 L of captured regolith, against the 437.1 mm diameter RASSOR 2.0 drum measured in the scaling study below [11].
Dust tolerance is the organizing constraint across the vehicle, with the thermal system, the charging system and the actuators identified as the three areas most exposed to it [2]. The Apollo dust review found that brushing worked in ground chambers and poorly on the Moon, and that ground tests consistently underestimated dust severity [14]; the IPEx dust-cup exposure is a ground test of the same kind.
Mobility
Section titled “Mobility”Mobility is four-wheel skid steer at a nominal 30 cm/s, able to cross rocks up to 7.5 cm high and slopes up to 15 degrees [1]. Maximum sustained drive speed demonstrated on the test site was 40 cm/s [3]. Each mobility actuator is allocated about 0.85 kg against a 30 kg vehicle mass [2]. Motor speeds as low as 25 RPM are required during parts of the concept of operations, including docking to the wireless charger.
Early IPEx wheel concepts, developed through several design iterations at the KSC lab alongside the Mini RASSOR outreach model, worked through spoke and rim geometry before the design settled [9]. The wheel began as a modified version of the VIPER wheel, adapted for skid steer driving. Grousers, cleat surfaces and spokes are removable so that they can be changed as full scale testing progresses, and the side rings carry a large chamfered edge that acts as a ski during skid steer turns, keeping the wheel edge from digging into the regolith and raising lateral and torsional loads. Ten wheel geometries were run in a trade study, which found a tradeoff between slip rate and power use, no significant effect from cleat design, and a small advantage to tapered over square grousers across the test set [1]. RASSOR tilt table testing had already established that wheels rather than tracks suit a machine whose excavation reaction is internally canceled: on a 25 degree slope in BP-1 simulant a 17 inch four wheel configuration succeeded three times in three, against one in three for metallic link tracks [5]. Ground wheel tests at 1 g do not transfer directly to the Moon: parabolic flight data showed drawbar pull to weight falling 20 percent or more and sinkage rising up to 40 percent in lunar gravity against reduced-weight 1 g tests, while granular scaling laws predicted drawbar pull within 8.5 percent and erred conservatively [15]. NASA’s 2025 consolidation of planetary mobility test practice flags cone index gradient matching of lunar soil strength under a different gravity field as of uncertain validity, and notes that no known facility reproduces the dynamic effects of a fast vehicle [17].
Actuator internals for the TRL 5 build use a ThinGap LSI 75-12 frameless brushless DC motor [1] with Honeywell SS511AT Hall effect sensors, a Harmonic Drive CSF 14-80LW gearset, SKF 71809 angular contact bearings in a back-to-back arrangement on the output, and a Nomex dust seal [2]. Sealing follows a layered scheme: a labyrinth path outermost, then a felt seal, then a PTFE lip seal. Because manufacturer motor curves and gear efficiencies assume specific greases, temperatures, and Earth pressure, a Gen 1 actuator was characterized end to end to separate the inefficiencies of motor, motor bearings, harmonic drive, output bearings, dust seals, and resolver under representative conditions [2]. Vacuum-rated grease was applied to bearings and gearing, and the open questions examined were how grease plating changed bearing and gear performance across temperature, how the resolver behaved at low speed, and the drag torque contributed by the dust seals. Actuator characterization covered 25, 50, and 100 RPM and then 200 RPM intervals up to 1700 RPM, at 35 and 40 degrees C surface temperature and bus voltages of 47.6, 53.2, and 58.8 V, with a further campaign across a transient thermal profile from -35 to 40 degrees C [2].
Power and energy
Section titled “Power and energy”IPEx is battery powered and recharges by docking with the lander. Recharging is wireless, using an antenna carried on the radiator cover, which removes the need for a dust-tolerant electrical connector, the component most likely to fail in a regolith environment [2]. The radiator cover provides a rotational degree of freedom used to align the charger during docking [1]. Battery capacity in watt-hours is not published. Duty cycle is set by battery depletion: the vehicle cycles between dig and dump sites until the battery is empty, then docks and recharges. On the test site this worked out to about 10 excavation and unload repetitions per charge, with 35 automated docking and recharge sequences across the demonstration [3].
Thermal
Section titled “Thermal”A continuously exposed radiator panel would be coated by excavation-generated dust and stop rejecting heat [1]. The Apollo record supports the concern: 11 percent areal dust coverage doubles the solar absorptance of a thermal control surface, and Apollo 16 and 17 rover batteries exceeded operational limits [14]. Lunar surface temperature at 85 degrees latitude ranges from a mean 182 K at local noon to a mean 61 K near 3 a.m. equivalent [7].
IPEx uses a buffered radiator. Heat is absorbed during operation by a phase change material rather than radiated, with the radiator kept closed under an actuated cover. When the PCM has fully melted the vehicle pauses, opens the cover, and radiates the stored heat to space until the PCM resolidifies [1]. On the test site a thermal reset was performed every 10 mission repetitions, paired with the docking and recharge sequence [3].
The PCM is n-hexadecane at 99 percent or better purity, melting at 18 degrees C. The installed charge stores a calculated 300.5 kJ of latent heat over that transition, which is the energy the vehicle can absorb between radiator openings [1]. It sits in a 6061 aluminum housing whose base conducts to the avionics enclosure and whose cavity is packed with thermal-epoxy bonded aluminum fins to distribute the load and move heat upward as the material expands and contracts. The cover doubles as the radiator surface and is coated with S13GLO, a low-outgassing white paint of zinc oxide in an RTV602 silicone binder. The cover itself is Cerakote coated and sealed with felt. The wider thermal subsystem comprises the radiator, cover and its actuator, PCM, heat spreader, heater strips, avionics enclosure, and multi-layer insulation.
Compute and avionics
Section titled “Compute and avionics”Avionics are housed in a dedicated enclosure that forms the conductive sink for the PCM [1]. The avionics and software subsystems are deferred to a separate publication and are not published; the TRL 5 ground demonstration used a surrogate avionics setup derived from the final flight computer, together with larger externally mounted battery packs suited to terrestrial testing [3]. All localization and autonomy software ran onboard, with only a subset of imagery and telemetry downlinked.
Payload and sensing
Section titled “Payload and sensing”The excavation implement is the payload. Beyond it, IPEx carries a minimum of four cameras: one stereo pair, one side-facing, and one mounted between a set of bucket drums [1]. The stereo pair supports visual odometry and hazard identification, the side-facing camera tracks the lander for absolute pose, and the drum camera views the terrain and the excavator itself. The drum view covers the working face, where cut depth beyond about 50 percent of the scoop opening causes regolith to bridge the opening and reduce the mass collected per rotation [4].
Field of view is set against two opposing requirements: a wide field helps near-field hazard detection and visual odometry, a narrow one improves pose estimation against a distant lander [1]. A 5 megapixel sensor was chosen to balance visual fidelity against onboard compute, with images downscaled for the most demanding operations. Initial work used a Sony IMX264 with a 3.45 micron pixel and a COTS C-mount lens, but C-mount lenses proved unsuitable for vacuum: venting difficulties, outgassing from the grease in the adjustment mechanisms, and the complexity of variable aperture and focus [1]. The design moved to S-mount lenses, which have fixed aperture and no moving parts and are straightforward to vent and secure, and correspondingly to the smaller-pixel Sony IMX547 sensor.
Dust on the lenses is mitigated in three layers. Transparent electrodynamic dust shield covers use alternating current to drive dust off the glass [1]. Each cover is held by a hold-down release mechanism that can jettison it if the EDS fails. Testing confirmed dust-clearing performance adequate for continued operation, though it also revealed that illumination behind the same piece of EDS glass produces reflections and image artifacts. Monocular camera modules carry a three-LED unit each; the stereo modules have no onboard LEDs and are lit by a stereo LED unit mounted elsewhere on the chassis.
Autonomy
Section titled “Autonomy”The excavation duty cycle leaves no room for an operator in the loop on individual digs, so the vehicle cycles autonomously and is supervised at the campaign level [2]. RASSOR’s own auto-dig routine, the precursor IPEx’s cycling replaces, is a PID loop on drum motor current with the digging arms as effectors; its derivative term goes unused in practice, and without an operator periodically raising the current setpoint the arms drift up until the drums stop engaging the soil, so the original design still assumed a monitoring human [10].
Localization uses no global positioning system. The vehicle estimates depth from stereo imagery and recovers absolute pose by recognizing the lander and its fiducial targets in the side-facing camera [1]. The traverse geometry is chosen to serve this: the path between dig and dump sites is an arc that keeps the lander continuously in the side camera’s view, which also lets a 15 m radius working area around the lander simulate the 100 m drive length that oxygen production teams specify as a minimum [2].
Drum fill state can be inferred without dedicated instrumentation: a free-spinning drum current model fitted to motor current reached about 7.4 percent mean percentage error on RASSOR hardware, and a neural network augmentation of it was integrated into the robotic system [6].
Modes of operation
Section titled “Modes of operation”The mission concept is cyclical [2]. After landing, IPEx deploys from the lander and performs a teleoperated slow-driving mapping routine over a half-circle of about 15 m radius, from which a dig site, a dump site, and a hazard-avoiding path between them are identified. It then drives that arcing path back and forth, excavating and unloading, until the battery is depleted; it docks, recharges wirelessly, and repeats, until 10 metric tons have been moved over 11 Earth days [2].
Three distinct modes therefore exist: teleoperated mapping, supervised autonomous excavation cycling, and docked recharge. To these the thermal design adds a fourth, a scheduled pause with the radiator cover open while the phase change material resolidifies [1]. On the test site the autonomous cycle was defined as three drives from the excavation zone to the dump zone, excavation and unloading, then three more drive cycles, averaging nine minutes per repetition [3].
Ground operations
Section titled “Ground operations”The August 2024 TRL 5 demonstration is the only published operations exercise, in which IPEx ran 334 excavation and unload cycles over 77 hours 46 minutes of continuous operation, equivalent to 205 hours 18 minutes of mission time or about eight days, covering 58.1 km, and finished with 59 hours of operational margin [3], against a flight requirement of 70 km over 11 days [1].
It was operated by four rotating ground crews of four people each: a primary operator with command authority during nominal operations who led problem deliberation, a secondary operator providing support, performance tracking, and troubleshooting, a telemetry desk officer monitoring and analyzing incoming data, and a simulation coordinator [3]. The simulation coordinator role exists because the test is a simulation: that operator oversaw the run with real-time data and imagery, performed out-of-simulation actions such as swapping batteries to limit real downtime, and was the only role with access to the situational cameras, so the operating crew saw only what a lunar crew would see.
Ground control sat 183 m from the test site [3]. The lander-to-ground link was represented by reduced data transmission and a 14 second round-trip delay, which is far longer than lunar light time and reflects CLPS relay and processing overheads rather than propagation. Rocks were placed in the test area unknown to the operators, and low solar angle illumination was reproduced with stadium lighting. An OptiTrack motion capture system published ground-truth pose on a ROS topic, recorded alongside the vehicle’s own telemetry in a time series database, giving operators outside the simulation a reference against which to evaluate the onboard localization.
Technologies developed
Section titled “Technologies developed”The transferable results are the dust-tolerance mechanisms rather than the excavator as a whole: the buffered radiator with actuated cover and phase change material, which converts a dust-vulnerable continuous radiator into a duty-cycled one; wireless charging, which removes the dust-tolerant connector problem entirely; the layered labyrinth, felt, and PTFE lip actuator seal stack, characterized for drag torque rather than assumed [2]; and electrodynamic dust shield lens covers with jettisonable hold-down release backup [1].
The autonomy test site itself is a product: a controlled terrestrial environment with granular material, a rock distribution drawn from a power law fit to Surveyor VI data, a full-scale lander mock-up, low-solar-angle stadium lighting, and motion capture ground truth, together with published instance segmentation and photogrammetry datasets collected in it [3].
Related excavation work
Section titled “Related excavation work”IPEx is one of several excavation concepts tested at KSC and elsewhere, and none of them has operated on the Moon. A review of thirteen regolith excavation systems, four discrete and nine continuous, found no common reporting set: the review proposes six parameters (capability, cut depth, mass, power, traverse speed, simulant), and almost all of the systems are below TRL 4 [19]. It lists RASSOR at 67 kg and 0.761 Wh/kg, from tests at 1 g with 5/6 gravity offload [19].
Percussion is a ground-tested alternative to cutting harder. A 76 cm bucket drawn through compacted BP-1 cut average maximum load by 19.2 percent across all percussive conditions, with a best case of 49.9 percent and two conditions where the load rose [18].
Continuous excavation is the family IPEx belongs to. Offloaded to 1/6 g, a bucket-wheel on the 312 kg Scarab rover had a predicted lightweight number of 10 to 20, against 0.3 to 0.7 for a discrete scraper that stalled after collecting 15 to 20 kg; at 1 g the scraper collected about 45 kg [20]. The same study shows that 1 g testing of a full-mass excavator over-predicts reduced-gravity performance [20].
Soil assumptions set the loads. Lunar soil has a loose top layer 10 to 15 cm thick, a surface bulk density of 1.30 g/cm3 and a shear strength above 2.0 kPa at 1 m that equipment must overcome [21]. Reference friction angle and cohesion rise from 42 degrees and 0.52 kPa over 0 to 15 cm to 54 degrees and 3.0 kPa over 30 to 60 cm, and no simulant reproduces every lunar property [22].
For scale on mobility autonomy, Curiosity’s visual odometry converged in 99.55 percent of attempts over 21,318.5 m of driving, at 47 s per update [23]. IPEx has no flight mobility record to compare.
Scaling
Section titled “Scaling”Bucket drums resist classical blade and bucket force models because of their geometry, so three geometrically similar drums were built and measured on a gantry test stand in BP-1 simulant [4].
| Drum | Diameter | Width | Scoop width | Scoop height | Mean fill per drum | Four-drum capacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small | 237.5 mm | 206 mm | 51.6 mm | 26.4 mm | 3.80 kg | 15.21 kg |
| Medium | 295.1 mm | 254 mm | 63.5 mm | 34.5 mm | 7.30 kg | 29.20 kg |
| Large (RASSOR 2.0) | 437.1 mm | 358 mm | 90.4 mm | 47.8 mm | 24.98 kg | 99.94 kg |
Values from [4]. A 1.84 times increase in diameter from small to large gives a 6.6 times increase in captured mass.
Test variables were linear cut speeds of 10 and 30 mm/s and cut depths of 10 mm and 40 percent of scoop height, 12 unique cases repeated four times for 48 runs, with drum tangential velocity held at 8.5 times the linear cut speed to keep cut pitch constant across scales [4]. Force and torque were logged at 1 kHz through an NI-9237 module. Horizontal excavation force per unit drum width rises with both cut speed and cut depth, and mechanical excavation energy per kilogram collected falls with increasing cut speed, increasing drum size and decreasing cut depth. Lateral force was negligible throughout, and vertical force with the drum fully engaged equalled the weight of captured regolith. Cut depth is bounded above by bridging: digging at full scoop depth lets regolith bridge the opening, and limiting cut depth to at most 50 percent of the scoop opening collects more regolith per rotation [4].
The scaling study concluded that the small and medium drums collect enough regolith at the required rate for the IPEx concept of operations [4].
What is not established
Section titled “What is not established”No IPEx flight has been assigned, and the 10,000 kg per lunar day capacity is a design target stated without test conditions [24]. The actuator qualification ran at 1 g with dust from a dust cup rather than an excavation environment, and the shoulder actuator model is inferred from the excavation actuator rather than characterized separately [2]. The characterization data are 10 points per condition, which the authors state is too few for a normal distribution, and the fitted current models are valid only inside narrow bounds [2]. Current spikes seen in mobility actuator ConOps testing are believed, not shown, to share the root cause of the accelerated life failure, and the flight motor controller had not been selected [2]. Avionics and software are unpublished [3]. The mobility trade study and the five-day demonstration were run at 1 g, and reduced-weight 1 g testing overstates lunar mobility [15]. The simulant strength match used in ground tests has no accepted validation under lunar gravity [17], and simulant shear strength varies with density even among simulants of similar grain size [16]. Simulant properties used in the ground demonstration are not the lunar regolith itself, and the 2006 simulant recommendations predate BP-1 [12].
References
- 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.} } - Clark, C. J., Smith, J. D., Nick, A. J., Ortega, V. V., Schuler, J. M., Dyas, J. E. and Lahl, J. (2025). Design and Testing of TRL5 IPEx Actuators
. IEEE Aerospace Conference, 20250000003. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{clark2025design, title = {Design and Testing of TRL5 IPEx Actuators}, author = {Clark, Casey J. and Smith, Jonathan Drew and Nick, Andrew J. and Ortega, Victoria V. and Schuler, Jason M. and Dyas, Jeffrey E. and Lahl, John}, booktitle = {IEEE Aerospace Conference}, number = {20250000003}, institution = {NASA}, address = {Big Sky, MT}, year = {2025}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20250000003}, abstract = {NASA is advancing In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) by focusing on missions aimed at establishing sustainable infrastructure on the Moon and Mars. On the Moon, regolith serves as the most abundant resource. To support ISRU objectives, a 30-kg-class robot called ISRU Pilot Excavator (IPEx) is being developed to excavate 10,000 kg of lunar regolith during a future technology demonstration mission. IPEx uses novel excavation tools, called bucket drums, which are hollow cylinders with scoops staggered around the outside. Regolith is collected with the scoops and flows into the drum where it is captured by an internal baffle system. The excavator can then transport the regolith in the drum and reverse the direction of the drum rotation to dispense the regolith out. IPEx uses two sets of bucket drums that dig simultaneously in opposing directions and results in counteracting excavation forces. This combination of bucket drum excavation tools and counteracting excavation forces enables low mass robotic excavators to effectively dig in reduced gravity environments. This is a significant departure from terrestrial excavators that rely on high mass to produce tractive forces to counteract the forces of excavation. IPEx is made up of several custom actuators that all need to be verified for their intended application. This paper focuses on the initial design, testing and modifications of three actuators: the mobility actuator, the shoulder actuator, and the excavation actuator. Each actuator was tested under four separate test profiles: ambient motor characterization, hot and cold motor characterization, accelerated life test (ALT), and concept of operations (ConOps) test. The motor characterization tests enabled derivation of torque equations for each actuator to estimate output torque without implementing sensors. The accelerated life tests were successful for each actuator and verified the motors’ ability to survive the mission. For the ConOps test, only the bucket drum actuator performed a complete ConOps without the need to restart the test. Overall, the first series of testing resulted in various failure modes and minor design alterations for each actuator. The test results, failure modes, and design alterations are highlighted within this paper. This paper focuses on discussing the mobility, excavation, and shoulder actuator design, testing principles, and results that qualified it as a TRL 5 system.} } - Cloud, J. M., Nick, A. J., Buckles, B. C., Dixon, K. L., Muller, T. J., Ortega, V. V., Smith, J. D., Clark, C. J., Dyas, J. E., Zhang, E. L., Leucht, K. W., Mueller, R. P. and Schuler, J. M. (2025). The IPEx Autonomy Test-Site: Terrestrial Testing of Autonomous Excavation in Lunar South Pole Conditions
. ASCE Earth and Space Conference, 20250000128. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{cloud2025ipex, title = {The IPEx Autonomy Test-Site: Terrestrial Testing of Autonomous Excavation in Lunar South Pole Conditions}, author = {Cloud, Joseph M. and Nick, Andrew J. and Buckles, Bradley C. and Dixon, Kyle L. and Muller, Thomas J. and Ortega, Victoria V. and Smith, Jonathan D. and Clark, Casey J. and Dyas, Jeffrey E. and Zhang, Elizabeth L. and Leucht, Kurt W. and Mueller, Robert P. and Schuler, Jason M.}, booktitle = {ASCE Earth and Space Conference}, number = {20250000128}, pages = {1-14}, institution = {NASA}, year = {2025}, doi = {10.1109/aero63441.2025.11068688}, abstract = {NASA's Artemis program aims to send humans to the lunar south pole (LSP), requiring in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technologies like the ISRU Pilot Excavator (IPEx) to perform site preparation and resource extraction. The LSP is a uniquely challenging environment, characterized by low solar angles and long shadows that disrupt vision-based autonomy. To approximate these conditions, we developed the IPEx autonomy test-site, a 21.3×33.5 m enclosed area for testing excavation technologies under simulated LSP conditions. The test-site is equipped with granular material, scattered rocks, and a full-scale lander model. Strategically placed high-power lights replicate the low solar angles, while a motion capture system offers ground truth robot poses. Additional site awareness cameras provide complete coverage of the test area for monitoring. The test-site has been utilized to evaluate performance of both autonomous navigation and excavation tasks. Finally, we discuss initial results obtained from test runs, calculations compared against a digital simulation, features of the terrain that mimic the visual properties of lunar regolith, and challenges observed.} } - Schuler, J., Nick, A., Leucht, K., Langton, A. and Smith, D. (2022). ISRU Pilot Excavator: Bucket Drum Scaling Experimental Results
. ASCE Earth and Space Conference, 20210025846. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{schuler2022isru, title = {ISRU Pilot Excavator: Bucket Drum Scaling Experimental Results}, author = {Schuler, Jason and Nick, Andrew and Leucht, Kurt and Langton, Austin and Smith, Drew}, booktitle = {ASCE Earth and Space Conference}, number = {20210025846}, pages = {394-407}, institution = {NASA}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.1061/9780784484470.037}, abstract = {NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) is funding the development of a robotic excavator called the “ISRU Pilot Excavator” (IPEx) which will be a technology demonstration of excavating and transporting 10 metric tons of lunar regolith on the surface of the Moon with a 30 kg-class robotic excavator. IPEx will be the next generation of robotic excavators to use bucket drums as excavation tools. This is an evolution of the regolith advanced surface systems operations robot (RASSOR) developed at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (KSC). Bucket drums are hollow cylinders with regularly spaced scoops around the perimeter. The drums rotate in one direction to collect regolith with the scoops. The regolith slides down an internal baffling system inside the drum which prevents the regolith from falling back out of the scoops. The captured regolith can then be transported while held in the drum and then deposited by rotating the drum in the opposite direction allowing the regolith to slide back down the baffling and out of the excavation scoops. Bucket drums were developed by Lockheed Martin in 2008 and used on multiple robotic excavator prototypes ever since. However, the forces on a bucket drum and considerations for scaling have not been measured in detail. Bucket drums are challenging to model using classical blade\bucket equations because of their unique geometry. Therefore, this experiment was performed to measure the forces on three bucket drums of the same geometry at different scales. Small: 9.4” (239 mm) dia. × 8.1” (206 mm) width, medium: 11.6” (294 mm) dia. × 10” (254 mm) width, and large: 17” (432 mm) dia. × 14.1” (358 mm) width. The test stand consisted of an actuated gantry with controlled motion in the vertical (Z) and horizontal (X) axes and a single rotation axis (R). The bucket drums were individually mounted to the rotary axis of the test stand and translated across a prepared bed of Black Point 1 (BP-1) lunar regolith simulant at a specified linear speed and cutting depth. The test stand was outfitted with a torque sensor in line with the rotation of the drum (R) and a 3 axis (X, Y, and Z) load cell. In addition to the three sizes of bucket drums the linear excavation speed and cutting depth were test variables. The results of these experiments show the relationship between the three scales of bucket drums for factors such as: excavation force, torque due to regolith rotation inside the drum, excavation energy, time to fill, etc. and will be discussed in detail in this paper. This fundamental data will be used in the design of IPEx and can inform the design of future bucket drum excavators.} } - 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.} } - Janmohamed, N. A., Cloud, J. M., Leucht, K. W., Bell, E. A., Buckles, B. C. and DuPuis, M. A. (2021). Mass Inferencing Model Creation and Deployment to the RASSOR Lunar Excavation Robot
. ASCEND. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{janmohamed2021mass, title = {Mass Inferencing Model Creation and Deployment to the RASSOR Lunar Excavation Robot}, author = {Janmohamed, Nashir A. and Cloud, Joseph M. and Leucht, Kurt W. and Bell, Evan A. and Buckles, Bradley C. and DuPuis, Michael A.}, booktitle = {ASCEND}, publisher = {American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.2514/6.2021-4216}, abstract = {View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-4216.vid The Regolith Advanced Surface Systems Operations Robot (RASSOR) Excavator is a mobile robotic bucket-drum excavator platform with a unique space regolith excavation capability. The Intelligent Capabilities Enhanced RASSOR research project developed functionality for estimating the quantity of regolith mass ingested during RASSOR operation, enhancing RASSOR’s ability to successfully complete In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) missions. To teleoperate or run autonomously, it is crucial for the amount of regolith mass ingested to be available as a system state for efficient operation. For example, during autonomous operation, RASSOR should navigate and move to a processing plant to offload the collected regolith when the drums are full; without knowledge of the total mass in the drums, this type of high-level planning is not possible. Three distinct modeling approaches were employed in developing a mass inferencing approach that could work on RASSOR, none of which require modification to the hardware. All take in system states, such as arm/drum motor positions, velocities, currents, voltages, and robot pose, and output a mass prediction for each set of the robot’s bucket drums. The developed models run in real-time, outputting predictions for the front drum mass, rear drum mass, timestamp of the last prediction, and total drum mass (sum of front and rear) in RASSOR’s drums. Models deployed to the hardware have low error (<7.5% mean error over the mass range, and <2.6% mean error when drums are more than half full) when making predictions in real-time. Our modeling approach can be adapted to use lunar excavation data to create models that are reflective of RASSOR’s dynamics when operating on the lunar surface. The results of this work are promising and show that models can be developed to accurately estimate excavated regolith mass.} } - NASA. (2020). Cross-Program Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE), Revision G
. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. Source
BibTeX
@techreport{nasa2020cross, title = {Cross-Program Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE), Revision G}, author = {{NASA}}, institution = {NASA Marshall Space Flight Center}, year = {2020}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20200000867}, abstract = {The DSNE completes environment-related specifications for architecture, system-level, and lower-tier documents by specifying the ranges of environmental conditions that must be accounted for by NASA ESD Programs. To assure clarity and consistency, and to prevent requirements documents from becoming cluttered with extensive amounts of technical material, natural environment specifications have been compiled into this document. The intent is to keep a unified specification for natural environments that each Program calls out for appropriate application.} } - 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} } - Ortega, V. (2021). Mini RASSOR and Pilot Excavator, 20210018482. ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210018482
BibTeX
@misc{ortega2021mini, title = {{Mini RASSOR} and Pilot Excavator}, author = {Ortega, Victoria}, howpublished = {Presentation at the NASA Kennedy Space Center, Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations Laboratory}, number = {20210018482}, year = {2021}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210018482}, abstract = {RASSOR (Regolith Advanced Surface Systems Operational Robot) is a dual bucket drum excavator prototype that is designed to dig regolith (moon dirt). Will develop into a smaller excavator named the ISRU Pilot Excavator that will go to the moon to support the Artemis mission. Regolith gathering by Pilot Excavator can be used as building material while dug up ice can be used as a water resource.} } - Cloud, J. M., Nieves, R. J., Duke, A. K., Muller, T. J., Janmohamed, N. A., Buckles, B. C. and DuPuis, M. A. (2021). Towards Autonomous Lunar Resource Excavation via Deep Reinforcement Learning
. ASCEND, 20210022218. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{cloud2021autonomous, title = {Towards Autonomous Lunar Resource Excavation via Deep Reinforcement Learning}, author = {Cloud, Joseph M. and Nieves, Rolando J. and Duke, Adam K. and Muller, Thomas J. and Janmohamed, Nashir A. and Buckles, Brad C. and DuPuis, Michael A.}, booktitle = {ASCEND}, number = {20210022218}, publisher = {American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics}, institution = {NASA}, address = {Las Vegas, Nevada}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.2514/6.2021-4217}, abstract = {View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-4217.vid To support sustainable infrastructure on the Moon, NASA needs to leverage lunar resources for in-situ processing and construction. NASA’s Regolith Advanced Surface Systems Operations Robot (RASSOR) is principally designed to mine and deliver regolith for these tasks. To reliably perform these operations on the lunar surface, RASSOR's sensors and control systems need to be robust and maximize information extracted from a reduced sensor payload. Herein, we present our findings from the Intelligent Capabilities Enhanced RASSOR project. We created reduced-order simulation environments in which we applied reinforcement learning algorithms to learn autonomous trenching controllers and produced state estimation architectures. We developed two simulations: a 2D excavation simulation used to facilitate parameter selection, and a 3D simulation developed using a game physics engine to simulate simplified soil interactions and incorporate robotic agents parameterized by dynamic models. Within these simulations, we learned autonomous excavation routines that exceed excavation efficiency measures as compared against RASSOR's existing control and teleoperation-based methods.} } - Weißenböck, S. and Fimbinger, E. (2021). Our Contribution to the NASA RASSOR Bucket Drum Design Challenge
. BHM Berg- und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte, 2. Source
BibTeX
@article{weissenbock2021our, title = {Our Contribution to the NASA RASSOR Bucket Drum Design Challenge}, author = {Weißenböck, Stephan and Fimbinger, Eric}, journal = {BHM Berg- und Hüttenmännische Monatshefte}, volume = {166}, number = {2}, pages = {104--111}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1007/s00501-021-01085-3}, abstract = {Abstract NASA’s Artemis program aims to return humans to the Moon sustainably and efficiently by using new and improved technology, which is based on the concept of generating products with local materials, a practice called In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU). Regolith excavation is the fundamental step in the ISRU chain to produce local commodities, such as propellants and breathing air, and to pursue construction operations. NASA is currently working on the Regolith Advanced Surface Systems Operations Robot (RASSOR), the key technology to enable extraterrestrial mining. The robot uses counterrotating bucket drums that capture regolith and keep it from falling out. NASA reached out to the public via GrabCAD to improve the robot’s design and chose five concepts, which will be tested and further improved. A team of three students from the University of Leoben (Dominik Höber, Andreas Taschner, and Stephan Weißenböck) took part in the challenge set by NASA and shared their ideas and concepts. They used this opportunity to implement their acquired knowledge from their studies and were also supported by a researcher from the Chair of Mining Engineering of the University of Leoben—Eric Fimbinger. The final design consists of three significant elements that were fused to increase efficiency: An outer helix, a spiral tunnel, and an inner helix. These three important components make up the concept which impressed the jury and reached fourth place out of approx. 350 entries. Due to the success of the project as well as the aroused interest amongst the students, further research projects were initialised as follow-ups, dealing with the topic of extraterrestrial mining. One is a research and development study covered by two master’s theses about excavation and conveying concepts on the Moon (see the article by Höber, Taschner and Fimbinger in this issue). The other one is in the form of a bachelor’s thesis to compare and analyse chosen concepts from the design challenge in a numerical simulation environment with equal conditions to allow virtual testing of those chosen designs.} } - Sibille, L., Carpenter, P., Schlagheck, R. and French, R. A. (2006). Lunar Regolith Simulant Materials: Recommendations for Standardization, Production, and Usage
. NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA/TP-2006-214605. Source
BibTeX
@techreport{sibille2006development, title = {Lunar Regolith Simulant Materials: Recommendations for Standardization, Production, and Usage}, author = {Sibille, Laurent and Carpenter, Paul and Schlagheck, R. and French, R. A.}, number = {NASA/TP-2006-214605}, institution = {NASA Marshall Space Flight Center}, type = {NASA Technical Publication}, year = {2006}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20060051776}, abstract = {Experience gained during the Apollo program demonstrated the need for extensive testing of surface systems in relevant environments, including regolith materials similar to those encountered on the lunar surface. As NASA embarks on a return to the Moon, it is clear that the current lunar sample inventory is not only insufficient to support lunar surface technology and system development, but its scientific value is too great to be consumed by destructive studies. Every effort must be made to utilize standard simulant materials, which will allow developers to reduce the cost, development, and operational risks to surface systems. The Lunar Regolith Simulant Materials Workshop held in Huntsville, AL, on January 24 26, 2005, identified the need for widely accepted standard reference lunar simulant materials to perform research and development of technologies required for lunar operations. The workshop also established a need for a common, traceable, and repeatable process regarding the standardization, characterization, and distribution of lunar simulants. This document presents recommendations for the standardization, production and usage of lunar regolith simulant materials.} } - Bonitz, R., Shiraishi, L., Robinson, M., Carsten, J., Volpe, R., Trebi-Ollennu, A., Arvidson, R. E., Chu, P. C., Wilson, J. J. and Davis, K. R. (2009). The Phoenix Mars Lander Robotic Arm
. IEEE Aerospace Conference. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{bonitz2009phoenix, title = {The Phoenix Mars Lander Robotic Arm}, author = {Bonitz, Robert and Shiraishi, Lori and Robinson, Matthew and Carsten, Joseph and Volpe, Richard and Trebi-Ollennu, Ashitey and Arvidson, Raymond E. and Chu, P. C. and Wilson, J. J. and Davis, K. R.}, booktitle = {IEEE Aerospace Conference}, pages = {1-12}, organization = {Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology}, address = {Big Sky, Montana}, year = {2009}, doi = {10.1109/aero.2009.4839306}, abstract = {The Phoenix Mars Lander Robotic Arm (RA) has operated for 149 sols since the Lander touched down on the north polar region of Mars on May 25, 2008. During its mission it has dug numerous trenches in the Martian regolith, acquired samples of Martian dry and icy soil, and delivered them to the Thermal Evolved Gas Analyzer (TEGA) and the Microscopy, Electrochemistry, and Conductivity Analyzer (MECA). The RA inserted the Thermal and Electrical Conductivity Probe (TECP) into the Martian regolith and positioned it at various heights above the surface for relative humidity measurements. The RA was used to point the Robotic Arm Camera to take images of the surface, trenches, samples within the scoop, and other objects of scientific interest within its workspace. Data from the RA sensors during trenching, scraping, and trench cave-in experiments have been used to infer mechanical properties of the Martian soil. This paper describes the design and operations of the RA as a critical component of the Phoenix Mars Lander necessary to achieve the scientific goals of the mission.} } - 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.} } - Daca, A. (2023). Predicting Planetary Rover Mobility in Reduced Gravity Using 1-g Experiments
. Unpublished. Source
BibTeX
@phdthesis{daca2023predicting, title = {Predicting Planetary Rover Mobility in Reduced Gravity Using 1-g Experiments}, author = {Daca, Adriana}, journal = {Unpublished}, school = {Concordia University}, address = {Montreal, Quebec, Canada}, type = {PhD thesis}, month = {February}, year = {2023}, doi = {10.13140/rg.2.2.12718.28485}, abstract = {Traversing granular regolith, especially in reduced gravity environments, remains a potential challenge for wheeled rovers. Mitigating hazards for planetary rovers requires testing in representative environments, but direct Earth-based testing fails to account for the effect of reduced gravity on the soil itself. Here, experimental apparatus and techniques for reduced-gravity flight testing are used to systematically evaluate three existing Earth-based testing methods and develop guidelines for their use and interpretation: (i) reduced-weight testing, (ii) matching soil testing instrument response through soil simulant design, and (iii) granular scaling laws (GSL). \nExperimentation campaigns flying reduced-gravity parabolas, with soil and wheel both in lunar-g, have shown reductions in net traction of 20% or more and increases in sinkage of up to 40% compared to Earth-based testing methods (i) and (ii). Scaled-wheel testing, according to GSL (method iii) has shown better agreement with reduced-g tests (less than 10% error) and also tends to err on the side of conservative predictions. \nLimitations of GSL are investigated including a recently proposed cohesion constraint (that the wheel radius ratio must be the inverse of the gravity ratio) and the effects of wheel size and aspect ratio on GSL’s accuracy. It was found that the cohesion constraint can most likely be ignored for mildly cohesive soils such as lunar regolith. Limits on wheel sizes and aspect ratio variation are also proposed. \nThe application of GSL to planetary rover testing is demonstrated through two studies undertaken in collaboration with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. One study compares wheel designs for a skid-steer lunar rover in single-wheel tests scaled by GSL, demonstrating that diagonal grousers improve turning performance without requiring larger wheels. The second study involves application of GSL to the design of two reconfigurable test platforms for evaluating steep-terrain mobility performance. \nAnother aspect of rover mobility testing—normal force control in single-wheel testbeds—is also investigated. An improved method for single-wheel testing, using a 4-bar mechanism, essentially eliminates normal force oscillations from frictional vertical sliders. \nFinally, guidelines for conducting and interpreting 1-g mobility tests for lunar rovers are presented, and potential avenues for future research are outlined.} } - Jehn, M., Just, G. H., Sargeant, H. M., Long-Fox, J. and Britt, D. T. (2025). Implications of Lunar Simulant Geotechnical Properties on Testbed Experimentation and Engineering Analysis
. Space and Planetary Resources. Source
BibTeX
@article{jehn2025implications, title = {Implications of Lunar Simulant Geotechnical Properties on Testbed Experimentation and Engineering Analysis}, author = {Jehn, Marcus and Just, Gabriele H. and Sargeant, Hannah M. and Long-Fox, Jared and Britt, Daniel T.}, journal = {Space and Planetary Resources}, volume = {1}, pages = {5}, year = {2025}, doi = {10.1007/s44461-025-00002-7}, abstract = {Understanding the mechanical behavior of lunar regolith simulants is crucial for progressing engineering analysis in surface infrastructure design and testbed evaluation. This study provides a detailed geotechnical characterization of the Colorado School of Mines Lunar Highlands Type-Testbed simulants, including a new highland-type lunar simulant integrated into the Mines Lunar Surface Simulator testbed. It includes the determination of key geotechnical properties such as particle size distribution, density, compressibility, cohesion, friction angle, and particle shape, using standardized ASTM testing procedures. Key findings show that while particle size distribution similarities exist among the simulants and actual lunar regolith, there are significant differences in density-dependent mechanical behaviors such as shear strength, compressibility, and deformation responses. These results emphasize the complexity of simulant fidelity and its impact on testbed experiments when simulating mid-Technology Readiness Level environments. Additionally, we emphasize the importance of density-specific testing for evaluating both geotechnical properties and simulant performance. This work presents the first comprehensive publication of the full geotechnical profile of Colorado School of Mines highland simulants and highlights the importance of using multiple parameters beyond just particle size distribution to evaluate simulant fidelity. Future research will concentrate on characterizing testbed variability and assessing properties across different density states to improve the application of lunar simulants in engineering analysis and testbed experimentation.} } - Creager, C., Breckenridge, J., Johnson, K., Oravec, H., Moreland, S., Sobey, A. and McBryan, E. (2025). Best Practices for the Testing of Planetary Roving Vehicle Mobility Systems and Tires
. NASA, 20250003470. Source
BibTeX
@techreport{creager2025best, title = {Best Practices for the Testing of Planetary Roving Vehicle Mobility Systems and Tires}, author = {Creager, Colin and Breckenridge, John and Johnson, Kyle and Oravec, Heather and Moreland, Scott and Sobey, Alexander and McBryan, Emily}, number = {20250003470}, institution = {NASA}, year = {2025}, url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20250003470}, abstract = {NASA has an extensive history of conducting mobility testing on planetary tires, rovers, and mobility subsystems. This paper contains a summary of the best practices and lessons learned from past test approaches, as well as from relevant test methodologies external to NASA, with a focus on tires and mobility systems. It is intended to be a resource for future planetary rover developments. This document, which will be released in two phases, serves two objectives: 1) compile the existing knowledge of mobility related testing within NASA; and 2) identify major gaps in mobility related test needs and suggest potential paths forward. This first release of the document (early 2025) captures information based on the authors’ existing knowledge and an abbreviated literature review. A more thorough version will be released in late 2025 and will include more information on test methods external to NASA, as well as additional lessons learned through further investigations. The Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV) is used as case study to help identify major test needs; however, this document is intended to be applicable to a wide range of potential missions. Though no current mobility standards exist for the testing of planetary tires and mobility subsystems, future motive is to utilize the information from this whitepaper to guide the development of NASA mobility test standards.} } - Mueller, R., Smith, J. D., Schuler, J., Nick, A. and Lippitt, T. (2013). Reducing Extra-Terrestrial Excavation Forces with Percussion
. IEEE Aerospace Conference, 20120017917. Source
BibTeX
@inproceedings{mueller2013reducing, title = {Reducing Extra-Terrestrial Excavation Forces with Percussion}, author = {Mueller, Robert and Smith, Jonathan Drew and Schuler, Jason and Nick, Andrew and Lippitt, Thomas}, booktitle = {IEEE Aerospace Conference}, number = {20120017917}, pages = {1-11}, institution = {NASA Kennedy Space Center}, year = {2013}, doi = {10.1109/aero.2013.6497139}, abstract = {High launch costs and mission requirements drive the need for low mass excavators with mobility platforms, which in turn have little traction and excavation reaction capacity in low gravity environments. This presents the need for precursor and long term future missions with low mass robotic mining technology to perform In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) tasks. This paper discusses a series of experiments that investigate the effectiveness of a percussive digging device to reduce excavation loads and thereby the mass of the excavator itself. A percussive mechanism and 30" wide pivoting bucket were attached to a test stand simulating a basic backhoe with a percussion direction tangent to the direction of movement. Impact energies from 13.6J to 30.5J and frequencies from 0 to 700 beats per minute (BPM) were investigated. A reduction in excavation force of as much as 50% was achieved in this experimental investigation.} } - Just, G. H., Smith, K., Joy, K. H. and Roy, M. (2020). Parametric review of existing regolith excavation techniques for lunar In Situ Resource Utilisation (ISRU) and recommendations for future excavation experiments
. Robotica. Source
BibTeX
@article{just2020parametric, title = {Parametric review of existing regolith excavation techniques for lunar In Situ Resource Utilisation (ISRU) and recommendations for future excavation experiments}, author = {Just, Gabriele H. and Smith, K. and Joy, Katherine H. and Roy, M.J.}, journal = {Robotica}, volume = {180}, pages = {104746}, publisher = {Elsevier BV}, year = {2020}, doi = {10.1016/j.pss.2019.104746}, abstract = {A high-level overview of current research in the area of lunar regolith excavation and handling for In Situ Resource Utilisation (ISRU) is presented. Thirteen processes are grouped into discrete and continuous excavators. A further differentiation is made between systems with and without connection to a mobility platform – referred to as complete and partial systems. For each group, a set of representative performance parameters has been identified and compared, while special characteristics or limitations are highlighted. The present work identifies a need for high detail research into the development of reliable and efficient excavation systems, due to the high importance of regolith excavation and handling to ISRU. A need for more standardised information and recording of specific data during supporting experimental studies is made apparent. In order to enable easier categorisation, comparison, and evaluation of future concepts, a set of key performance parameters requiring consideration during experimental campaigns is described and the importance of their inclusion underlined.} } - Skonieczny, K., Wettergreen, D. and Whittaker, W. “. (2016). Advantages of continuous excavation in lightweight planetary robotic operations
. The International Journal of Robotics Research. Source
BibTeX
@article{skonieczny2016advantages, title = {Advantages of continuous excavation in lightweight planetary robotic operations}, author = {Skonieczny, K and Wettergreen, DS and Whittaker, WL “Red”}, journal = {The International Journal of Robotics Research}, volume = {35}, pages = {1121-1139}, year = {2016}, doi = {10.1177/0278364915615689}, abstract = {Planetary excavator robots face unique and extreme engineering constraints relative to terrestrial counterparts. In space missions mass is always at a premium because it is the main driver behind launch costs. Lightweight operation, due to low mass and reduced gravity, hinders excavation and mobility by reducing the forces a robot can effect on its environment. This work shows that there is a quantifiable, non-dimensional threshold that distinguishes the regimes of lightweight and nominal excavation. This threshold is crossed at lower weights for continuous excavators (e.g. bucket-wheels) than discrete scrapers. This research introduces novel experimentation that for the first time subjects excavators to gravity offload (a cable pulls up on the robot with five-sixths its weight, to simulate lunar gravity) while they dig. A 300 kg excavator robot offloaded to 1/6 g successfully collects 0.5 kg/s using a bucket-wheel, with no discernible effect on mobility. For a discrete scraper of the same weight, production rapidly declines as rising excavation resistance stalls the robot. These experiments suggest caution in interpreting low-gravity performance predictions based solely on testing in Earth gravity. Experiments were conducted in GRC-1, a washed industrial silica-sand devoid of agglutinates and of the sub-75-micron basaltic fines that make up 40% of lunar regolith. The important dangers related to dust are thus not directly addressed. The achieved densities for experimentation are 1640 kg/m 3 (very loose/loose) and 1720 kg/m 3 (medium dense). This work develops a novel robotic bucket-wheel excavator, featuring unique direct transfer from bucket-wheel to dump bed as a solution to material transfer difficulties identified in past literature.} } - 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.} } - Slyuta, E. N. (2014). Physical and mechanical properties of the lunar soil (a review)
. Solar System Research. Source
BibTeX
@article{slyuta2014physical, title = {Physical and mechanical properties of the lunar soil (a review)}, author = {Slyuta, E. N.}, journal = {Solar System Research}, volume = {48}, pages = {330-353}, year = {2014}, doi = {10.1134/s0038094614050050}, abstract = {We review the data on the physical and mechanical properties of the lunar soil that were acquired in the direct investigations on the lunar surface carried out in the manned and automatic missions and in the laboratory examination of the lunar samples returned to the Earth. In justice to the American manned program Apollo , we show that a large volume of the data on the properties of the lunar soil was also obtained in the Soviet automatic program Lunokhod and with the automatic space stations Luna-16 , -20 , and -24 that returned the lunar soil samples to the Earth. We consider all of the main physical and mechanical properties of the lunar soil, such as the granulometric composition, density and porosity, cohesion and adhesion, angle of internal friction, shear strength of loose soil, deformation characteristics (the deformation modulus and Poisson ratio), compressibility, and the bearing capacity, and show the change of some properties versus the depth. In most cases, the analytical dependence of the main parameters is presented, which is required in developing reliable engineering models of the lunar soil. The main physical and mechanical properties are listed in the summarizing table, and the currently available models and simulants of the lunar soil are reviewed.} } - Rankin, A., Maimone, M., Biesiadecki, J., Patel, N., Levine, D. and Toupet, O. (2021). Mars Curiosity Rover Mobility Trends During the First Seven Years
. Journal of Field Robotics, 5. Source
BibTeX
@article{rankin2021mars, title = {Mars Curiosity Rover Mobility Trends During the First Seven Years}, author = {Rankin, Arturo and Maimone, Mark and Biesiadecki, Jeffrey and Patel, Nikunj and Levine, Dan and Toupet, Olivier}, journal = {Journal of Field Robotics}, volume = {38}, number = {5}, pages = {759--800}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1002/rob.22011}, abstract = {Abstract NASA's Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Curiosity rover landed on Mars on August 6, 2012. In the 7 years between landing and August 6, 2019 (sol 2488), Curiosity has driven 21,318.5 m over a variety of terrain types and slopes, employing multiple drive modes with varying amounts of onboard autonomy. Curiosity's drive distances each sol have ranged from its shortest drive of 2.6 cm to its longest drive of 142.5 m, with an average drive distance of 28.9 m. Real‐time human intervention is not possible during Curiosity's drives due to the latency in uplinking commands and downlinking telemetry. Instead, the operations team relies on Curiosity's fault protection, autonomous navigation, and visual odometry software to keep the rover safe during drives. During its first 7 years on Mars, Curiosity has attempted 738 drives. While 622 drives ran to completion, 116 drives were prevented or stopped early by Curiosity's fault protection software. The primary risks to mobility success have been wheel damage, wheel entrapment, progressive wheel sinkage, and the potential for hardware or cable failures that result in an inability to command one or more steer or drive actuators. In this paper, we describe Curiosity's mobility subsystem, mobility trends over the first 21.3 km of the mission, operational aspects of mobility fault protection, risks to continued mobility success, and risk mitigation strategies.} } - (2023). NASA: Infrastructure Pilot Excavator. nasa.gov/ipex
BibTeX
@misc{nasainfrastructure, title = {NASA: Infrastructure Pilot Excavator}, organization = {nasa.gov}, year = {2023}, url = {https://www.nasa.gov/ipex/} }