Skip to content

Opportunity

Opportunity self-portrait taken with the Pancam mast camera in late March 2014, after wind removed much of the accumulated dust from the solar arrays. The 1.8 m span of the triple-junction solar array dominates the deck, with the rocker-bogie suspension and the 0.254 m wheels below it NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell Univ./Arizona State Univ. Public domain (NASA / US government work).

Opportunity landed in Meridiani Planum on 25 January 2004 with a planned 90-sol mission [1]. It drove 45.16 km over 14.375 years of operation, which is the record for off-Earth wheeled vehicle odometry [10]. Its twin Spirit landed in the opposite hemisphere and operated until 2010; through March 2005 the two had driven 3158 m and 4161 m respectively [2]. The two vehicles are identical in design.

Opportunity landed inside a small crater whose walls exposed sulfate-rich sedimentary rock containing hematite concretions. Later work at the rim of Endeavour crater identified clay minerals formed in water of near-neutral pH.

ParameterValueSource
Mass185 kg[1]
Wheelbase length / width1.4 m / 1.2 m
Width across solar panel1.8 m
Height with mast deployedjust over 1.5 m
Ground clearanceat least 0.3 m
Wheelssix driven, four corner wheels steered, 0.25 m diameter, rocker-bogie[3]
Solar arraystriple-junction GaInP/GaAs/Ge[4]
Array output at start of missionapproximately 140 W
ParameterValueSource
LandingMeridiani Planum, 25 January 2004 UTC[10], [15]
Planned mission90 sols[1]
Last communication10 June 2018[15]
Total traverse45.16 km over 14.375 years, the off-Earth wheeled odometry record[10]
TwinSpirit, Gusev crater, 3 January 2004, concluded 2010[15]
Combined raw images returned by both roversmore than 300,000[15]

The NASA mission page dates the landing to 24 January 2004 [15]; the landing was at 05:05 UTC on 25 January, which is 24 January in Pacific time. Dates here are UTC. The same page is the only source held here for the combined image return, which it carries in the caption of an infographic rather than as a figure with a source of its own [15].

The arm carries a microscopic imager, Moessbauer spectrometer, alpha particle X-ray spectrometer, and a rock abrasion tool for grinding through weathering rinds to unaltered material [3].

Meridiani Planum is flatter and less rocky than Gusev, which allowed long drives but exposed Opportunity to wind-formed ripples of loose sand that are geometrically unremarkable and therefore invisible to a hazard detector reasoning about shape [2]. Aeolian sand of that kind has a cohesion at or below 1 kPa and a friction angle near 30 degrees, against 4 to 25 kPa for cemented material, so the bearing capacity difference between a ripple and the surrounding plain is an order of magnitude with no corresponding difference in relief [9].

On sol 446 Opportunity executed 50 m of blind driving into what the imagery showed as an unremarkable pile of sand, and the wheels turned through 50 m of rotation while the vehicle advanced about 2 m [2]. Extraction took 39 sols. During recovery, commanded motions of 2 m with the wheels steered for a 23 degree heading change produced actual progress on the order of 1 mm on many sols [2]. Driving was terminated on sol 484 when visual odometry failed to converge three times, indicating the vehicle had finally moved far enough that the tracked features left the field of view.

The mechanism is the regenerative slip-sinkage coupling: rotation without advance displaces material rearward and downward, enlarging sinkage, contact patch and bulldozing resistance, which further reduces net thrust [5], [6]. Slip ratio, defined from commanded wheel surface velocity against measured vehicle velocity, approaches 1 as this proceeds, and slope traversal adds lateral slip on top of it. The Bekker pressure-sinkage relation with the Janosi-Hanamoto shear-displacement relation is the formulation used to model it, though measured wheel forces in dry granular media are reproduced more accurately by resistive force theory and by continuum plasticity.

The extraction procedure was built around visual odometry. After each commanded 2 m of driving, visual odometry estimated actual motion; if it confirmed little or no movement more commands were sent, and once it measured non-trivial motion or failed to converge, all driving stopped so the site could be examined [2]. The feature detector had been tuned for feature-rich natural terrain and often could not find enough features in bare sand, but the same pliability that trapped the rover made its own wheel tracks sharply visible and supplied the features needed for convergence.

Solar arrays with rechargeable batteries for the night. Array performance is the primary constraint on both allowed landing latitude and available surface power, and it is degraded by two separate dust processes: suspended atmospheric dust that modifies the spectrum and reduces intensity with optical depth and time of day, and deposited dust that obscures the cells cumulatively [4]. Wind gusts repeatedly cleared the arrays and restored power; that effect was not credited in the power budget and accounts for much of the mission duration. Removal requires a surface shear stress at or above the saltation threshold, which is not schedulable, while deposition continues whenever suspended dust is present, and background column optical depth stays below 1 through the aphelion half of the year with regional activity recurring at L_s 210 to 240 and 320 to 340 [7], [8].

Energy dominates winter operations: during low battery states of charge the mission canceled all telemetry transmission except the afternoon Odyssey relay pass [1]. An instrument deployment device heater that failed on drew power continuously, forcing development of a deep sleep mode that eliminated overnight drain at the cost of being unable to wake for early morning relay passes; it was introduced in July 2004 and used for the rest of that winter.

ParameterValueSource
Enclosurecomposite honeycomb exoskeleton lined with aerogel, closed by the equipment deck[1]
Aerogel composition99.8 percent air
Surface peak daytime temperature-15 C[4]
Surface nighttime minimum-127 C
Transponder and SSPA allowable flight temperature50 C (protoflight 60 C)[1]
UHF transceiver allowable flight temperature55 C (protoflight 70 C)

The cruise-stage heat rejection loop was severed at Mars arrival by design, so surface thermal control is passive plus heaters [1]. The diurnal swing the enclosure must absorb is large: at low latitude the air temperature range across a sol commonly exceeds 80 K, and measured air temperature at landed sites spans 140 to 300 K across the year [7]. The active constraint is on the hot side: because the transponder, the two solid-state power amplifiers and the UHF transceiver sit close together on the rover electronics module, temperatures climb through the day as transmitters run three or four times in succession.

ElementSpecificationSource
ProcessorRAD6000, 20 MHz[2]
Bus to transponderMIL-STD-1553, low power[1]
Power distributionrover power distribution unit
Inertial measurement unitLitton LN-200
IMU attitude driftunder approximately 3 deg/h[2]
Visual odometry image size256 x 256 NavCam stereo pairs
Visual odometry time per stepup to three minutes, averaging nearly three

The 20 MHz RAD6000 is the same class of part flown across the MER program [3], and its cost per visual odometry update dictated the opposite design choice from terrestrial practice: rather than update frequently so that inter-frame motion stays small and tracking is cheap, MER images as rarely as possible and makes the tracker tolerant of large feature displacements [2].

Non-volatile storage degraded across the mission until Opportunity was operated without usable flash, downlinking all data before each shutdown.

ConstraintValue
NavCam field of view / height45 deg / 1.5 m above ground
Required overlap between successive stereo pairsat least 60 percent
Maximum straight or arcing drive per step75 cm
Maximum heading change per step when turning in place18 deg
Convergence rate, Opportunity95 percent, 828 of 875
Convergence rate, Spirit97 percent, 590 of 609
Maximum slip ratio measured125 percent
Smallest displacement resolved2 mm
Drive rate with visual odometry running continuouslyapprox 10 m/h

Constraints from [2].

Motion outside the per-step bounds forfeits the update for that step [2]. The bounds follow from the 45 degree camera field of view and the 1.5 m camera height, which together fix how much ground leaves the frame per meter driven. Because each update is expensive, visual odometry was commanded selectively: for short drives under about 15 m on slopes typically steeper than 10 degrees, when a wheel was being dragged, or when driving through sand [2]. Attitude was well maintained by the IMU, so visual odometry corrected position only during the first two years.

Purgatory changed the drive strategy permanently. Blind drive segments over sandy terrain were capped, initially at 5 m, after which a slip check, a short 20 cm step measured by visual odometry, verifies forward progress; if progress falls below a set fraction, driving stops [2]. Slip checks halted drives before they dug in on sols 501 and 603, allowing driving to resume the following sol rather than costing 39. The slip check bounds how deeply the rover can bury itself while retaining most of the speed of blind driving. It is a fault protection threshold on slip ratio, not a soil model: the underlying strength contrast that produces the runaway is not observable from the surface the rover is standing on [5].

Non-geometric hazards are not detectable onboard: a patch of loose sand has no distinguishing shape [2]. Predicting them requires soil state, and neither cohesion nor friction angle is observable from the rover’s own imagery or from orbit at drive scale [9]. Where such a hazard was suspected, human drivers defined keep-out zones manually, and the mobility sequence polled the corrected position against that list and halted on approach. Statistical mobility prediction over deformable terrain, which propagates uncertainty in soil parameters through a wheel-soil model to bound expected slip before a drive, was developed afterwards and was not available to MER [6].

X-band uses a small deep space transponder and solid-state power amplifier inside the warm electronics box, feeding either a steerable flat-panel phased array high-gain antenna or a near-omnidirectional low-gain antenna on the deck [1]. Bulk return is UHF relay from a 19 cm monopole through a CMC Electronics transceiver matched to the unit on Mars Odyssey.

LinkParameterValue
X-band LGAMinimum uplink / downlink7.8125 bps / 10 bps [1]
X-band HGABest uplink / downlink at shortest range2 kbps / 28.8 kbps [1]
UHFRates supported either direction8, 32, 128, 256 kbps [1]
UHFForward link as flownfixed 8 kbps [1]
UHFReturn link per pass128 or 256 kbps [1]
Relay geometryPasses above 20 deg elevationapprox 1.8 per sol per orbiter, 2 to 8 min [1]

Return rate was chosen per pass between 128 and 256 kbps for maximum volume, and 256 kbps came into regular use in the extended missions [1]. Odyssey runs CCSDS Proximity-1 with Go-Back-N retransmission and reaches about 97 percent throughput despite up to 15 loss-of-lock gaps per pass. Mars Global Surveyor used the older Mars Balloon Relay protocol, transmitting only 13.3 to 13.8 s out of every 16 s and losing about two frames every 16 s at 128 kbps, so it carried only low-priority data and was dropped for Opportunity after sol 171 [1]. Through September 2005 about 92 percent of returned data went via Odyssey, 5 percent via MGS and 3 percent over the direct X-band link, over which interval the rover had driven 3158 m across 172 driving sols [2].

Most sols include a five-minute carrier-only downlink, a beep when stationary and a honk when driving, confirming that the morning master sequence uploaded and started when a full direct-to-Earth session cannot be afforded in power, thermal or activity terms [1]. The master sequence is uplinked blind each morning, without confirmation that the command sweep succeeded, so the timing of the returned beep is the acknowledgement. Beeps are found first by open-loop fast Fourier transform and are detectable down to 12 dB-Hz [1].

Driving and imaging cannot be scheduled during a UHF pass, because pre-launch testing showed they can interfere with the UHF receiver [1]. Deep sleep is the low-power overnight mode described above. Communication windows are parameterized, including high-priority windows that override the default low-rate downlink during anomalies. Driving modes are parameterized in the same way: blind, visual-odometry-corrected, and blind with periodic slip checks, selected per segment against the terrain the previous sol’s imagery showed [2].

Operated from JPL. Relay passes are requested and sequenced onto the orbiters one to two weeks ahead, with unrequested passes left in a default configuration; tactical planning then works sol by sol over the next pass or two, optimizing UHF return against rover attitude, available energy and when the data is needed on the ground [1].

Vehicle pose is treated as a communications parameter. Data volume forecasts identify desirable parking yaw angles, handed to mobility planning as an end-of-drive constraint, and on occasion the rover was turned between two afternoon overflights purely to put the next orbiter in a high-gain region of the antenna pattern [1]. Where tilt was large enough to invalidate the zero-tilt forecast, the predictor was rerun with the estimated attitude.

Rover drivers carry two responsibilities unusual for a teleoperated vehicle: choosing camera pointing so that the terrain in frame contains enough trackable features for visual odometry to converge, and writing sequences that check convergence at every step [2]. Both follow from the 60 percent overlap and feature-count requirements above.

Long duration forced continuous adaptation. A steering actuator failed, fixing one wheel. A heater failed on, drawing power every sol [1]. Flash memory degraded until the rover operated without non-volatile storage. A planet-encircling dust storm in June 2018 raised column optical depth far above background; during the comparable MY34 event the global mean reached about 4 with local values of 5 to 10, and dust was lofted to 80 km [8]. Opportunity stopped responding and did not recover.

MER flew visual odometry on another world for the first time. It began as a position-knowledge tool and became the basis of a family of operational safeguards: slip checks that bound how deeply a rover can dig itself in, keep-out zone enforcement against a corrected rather than a dead-reckoned position, and bounded position error while dragging a dead wheel [2]. Every subsequent Mars rover carries visual odometry, and Curiosity’s slip-check and full modes are direct descendants of the modes invented here in response to Purgatory and to the rock lodged in Spirit’s wheel on sol 339.

The flight record it produced, 95 percent convergence over 875 stereo pairs on Opportunity, slip measured to 125 percent and displacement to 2 mm, is the dataset against which subsequent wheel-soil and slip-prediction models are validated [2], [5], [6].

References

  1. Taylor, J., Makovsky, A., Barbieri, A., Tung, R., Estabrook, P. and Thomas, A. G. (2005). Mars Exploration Rover Telecommunications . Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, DESCANSO Design and Performance Summary Series, Article 10. Source
    BibTeX
    @techreport{taylor2005mars,
      title = {Mars Exploration Rover Telecommunications},
      author = {Taylor, Jim and Makovsky, Andre and Barbieri, Andrea and Tung, Ramona and Estabrook, Polly and Thomas, A. Gail},
      number = {DESCANSO Design and Performance Summary Series, Article 10},
      institution = {Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology},
      year = {2005},
      url = {https://descanso.jpl.nasa.gov/DPSummary/MER_article_cmp20051028.pdf}
    }
  2. Maimone, M., Cheng, Y. and Matthies, L. (2007). Two Years of Visual Odometry on the Mars Exploration Rovers . Journal of Field Robotics, 3. Source
    BibTeX
    @article{maimone2007two,
      title = {Two Years of Visual Odometry on the Mars Exploration Rovers},
      author = {Maimone, Mark and Cheng, Yang and Matthies, Larry},
      journal = {Journal of Field Robotics},
      volume = {24},
      number = {3},
      pages = {169--186},
      institution = {NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory},
      year = {2007},
      doi = {10.1002/rob.20184},
      abstract = {Abstract NASA's two Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) have successfully demonstrated a robotic Visual Odometry capability on another world for the first time. This provides each rover with accurate knowledge of its position, allowing it to autonomously detect and compensate for any unforeseen slip encountered during a drive. It has enabled the rovers to drive safely and more effectively in highly sloped and sandy terrains and has resulted in increased mission science return by reducing the number of days required to drive into interesting areas. The MER Visual Odometry system comprises onboard software for comparing stereo pairs taken by the pointable mast‐mounted 45 deg FOV Navigation cameras (NAVCAMs). The system computes an update to the 6 degree of freedom rover pose ( x , y , z , roll, pitch, yaw) by tracking the motion of autonomously selected terrain features between two pairs of 256×256 stereo images. It has demonstrated good performance with high rates of successful convergence (97% on Spirit, 95% on Opportunity), successfully detected slip ratios as high as 125%, and measured changes as small as 2 mm, even while driving on slopes as high as 31 deg. Visual Odometry was used over 14% of the first 10.7 km driven by both rovers. During the first 2 years of operations, Visual Odometry evolved from an “extra credit” capability into a critical vehicle safety system. In this paper we describe our Visual Odometry algorithm, discuss several driving strategies that rely on it (including Slip Checks, Keep‐out Zones, and Wheel Dragging), and summarize its results from the first 2 years of operations on Mars. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.}
    }
  3. Erickson, J. K., Adler, M., Crisp, J., Mishkin, A. and Welch, R. (2002). Mars Exploration Rover: Surface Operations . International Astronautical Congress, The World Space Congress, IAC-02-Q.3.1.03. Source
    BibTeX
    @inproceedings{erickson2002mars,
      title = {Mars Exploration Rover: Surface Operations},
      author = {Erickson, James K. and Adler, Mark and Crisp, J. and Mishkin, A. and Welch, R.},
      booktitle = {International Astronautical Congress, The World Space Congress},
      number = {IAC-02-Q.3.1.03},
      institution = {NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory},
      address = {Houston, Texas},
      year = {2002},
      url = {https://dataverse.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=hdl:2014/9630}
    }
  4. Landis, G. A., Kerslake, T. W., Jenkins, P. P. and Scheiman, D. A. (2004). Mars Solar Power . International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, NASA/TM-2004-213367. Source
    BibTeX
    @inproceedings{landis2004mars,
      title = {Mars Solar Power},
      author = {Landis, G. A. and Kerslake, T. W. and Jenkins, P. P. and Scheiman, D. A.},
      booktitle = {International Energy Conversion Engineering Conference},
      number = {NASA/TM-2004-213367},
      institution = {NASA Glenn Research Center},
      year = {2004},
      doi = {10.2514/6.2004-5555},
      abstract = {NASA missions to Mars, both robotic and human, rely on solar arrays for the primary power system. Mars presents a number of challenges for solar power system operation, including a dusty atmosphere which modifies the spectrum and intensity of the incident solar illumination as a function of time of day, degradation of the array performance by dust deposition, and low temperature operation. The environmental challenges to Mars solar array operation will be discussed and test results of solar cell technology operating under Mars conditions will be presented, along with modeling of solar cell performance under Mars conditions. The design implications for advanced solar arrays for future Mars missions is discussed, and an example case, a Martian polar rover, are analyzed.}
    }
  5. Agarwal, S., Senatore, C., Zhang, T., Kingsbury, M., Iagnemma, K., Goldman, D. I. and Kamrin, K. (2019). Modeling of the Interaction of Rigid Wheels with Dry Granular Media . Journal of Terramechanics. Source
    BibTeX
    @article{agarwal2019modeling,
      title = {Modeling of the Interaction of Rigid Wheels with Dry Granular Media},
      author = {Agarwal, Shashank and Senatore, Carmine and Zhang, Tingnan and Kingsbury, Mark and Iagnemma, Karl and Goldman, Daniel I. and Kamrin, Ken},
      journal = {Journal of Terramechanics},
      volume = {85},
      pages = {1--14},
      year = {2019},
      doi = {10.1016/j.jterra.2019.06.001}
    }
  6. Ishigami, G., Kewlani, G. and Iagnemma, K. (2009). Predictable Mobility: A Statistical Approach for Planetary Surface Exploration Rovers in Deformable Terrain . IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, 4. Source
    BibTeX
    @article{ishigami2009predictable,
      title = {Predictable Mobility: A Statistical Approach for Planetary Surface Exploration Rovers in Deformable Terrain},
      author = {Ishigami, Genya and Kewlani, Gaurav and Iagnemma, Karl},
      journal = {IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine},
      volume = {16},
      number = {4},
      pages = {61--70},
      year = {2009},
      doi = {10.1109/mra.2009.934823},
      abstract = {In this article, a statistical mobility prediction for planetary surface exploration rovers has been described. This method explicitly considers uncertainty of the terrain physical parameters via SRSM and employs models of both vehicle dynamics and wheel-terrain interaction mechanics. The simulation results of mobility prediction using three different techniques, SMC, LHSMC, and SRSM, confirms that SRSM significantly improves the computational efficiency compared with those conventional methods. The usefulness and validity of the proposed method has been confirmed through experimental studies of the slope traversal scenario in two different terrains. The results show that the predicted motion path with confidence ellipses can be used as a probabilistic reachability metric of the rover position. Also, for the slope-traversal case, terrain parameter uncertainty has a larger influence on the lateral motion of the rover than on longitudinal motion. Future directions of this study will apply the proposed technique to the path-planning problem. Here, confidence ellipses will be used to define collision-free areas, which will provide useful criteria for generating safe trajectories.}
    }
  7. Martínez, G. M., Newman, C. N., De Vicente-Retortillo, A., Fischer, E., Renno, N. O., Richardson, M. I., Fairén, A. G., Genzer, M., Guzewich, S. D., Haberle, R. M., Harri, A.-M., Kemppinen, O., Lemmon, M. T., Smith, M. D., de la Torre-Juárez, M. and Vasavada, A. R. (2017). The Modern Near-Surface Martian Climate: A Review of In-situ Meteorological Data from Viking to Curiosity . Space Science Reviews. Source
    BibTeX
    @article{martinez2017modern,
      title = {The Modern Near-Surface Martian Climate: A Review of In-situ Meteorological Data from Viking to Curiosity},
      author = {Martínez, G. M. and Newman, C. N. and De Vicente-Retortillo, A. and Fischer, Erik and Renno, N. O. and Richardson, Mark I. and Fairén, A. G. and Genzer, Maria and Guzewich, Scott D. and Haberle, R. M. and Harri, Ari-Matti and Kemppinen, Osku and Lemmon, Mark T. and Smith, Michael D. and de la Torre-Juárez, M. and Vasavada, Ashwin R.},
      journal = {Space Science Reviews},
      volume = {212},
      pages = {295--338},
      year = {2017},
      doi = {10.1007/s11214-017-0360-x},
      abstract = {We analyze the complete set of in-situ meteorological data obtained from the Viking landers in the 1970s to today’s Curiosity rover to review our understanding of the modern near-surface climate of Mars, with focus on the dust, CO 2 and H 2 O cycles and their impact on the radiative and thermodynamic conditions near the surface. In particular, we provide values of the highest confidence possible for atmospheric opacity, atmospheric pressure, near-surface air temperature, ground temperature, near-surface wind speed and direction, and near-surface air relative humidity and water vapor content. Then, we study the diurnal, seasonal and interannual variability of these quantities over a span of more than twenty Martian years. Finally, we propose measurements to improve our understanding of the Martian dust and H 2 O cycles, and discuss the potential for liquid water formation under Mars’ present day conditions and its implications for future Mars missions. Understanding the modern Martian climate is important to determine if Mars could have the conditions to support life and to prepare for future human exploration.}
    }
  8. Montabone, L., Forget, F., Millour, E., Wilson, R. J., Lewis, S. R., Cantor, B. A., Kass, D., Kleinböhl, A., Lemmon, M. T., Smith, M. D. and Wolff, M. J. (2015). Eight-year Climatology of Dust Optical Depth on Mars . Icarus. Source
    BibTeX
    @article{montabone2015eight,
      title = {Eight-year Climatology of Dust Optical Depth on Mars},
      author = {Montabone, L. and Forget, Francois and Millour, Ehouarn and Wilson, R. J. and Lewis, Stephen R. and Cantor, B. A. and Kass, D. and Kleinböhl, A. and Lemmon, Mark T. and Smith, Michael D. and Wolff, M. J.},
      journal = {Icarus},
      volume = {251},
      pages = {65--95},
      year = {2015},
      doi = {10.1016/j.icarus.2014.12.034}
    }
  9. Spohn, T., Hudson, T. L., Witte, L., Wippermann, T., Wisniewski, L., Kedziora, B., Vrettos, C., Lorenz, R. D., Golombek, M., Lichtenheldt, R., Grott, M., Knollenberg, J., Krause, C., Fantinati, C., Krueger, T. and Grygorczuk, J. (2022). The InSight-HP3 Mole on Mars: Lessons Learned from Attempts to Penetrate to Depth in the Martian Soil . Advances in Space Research, 8. Source
    BibTeX
    @article{spohn2022insight,
      title = {The InSight-HP3 Mole on Mars: Lessons Learned from Attempts to Penetrate to Depth in the Martian Soil},
      author = {Spohn, Tilman and Hudson, Troy L. and Witte, Lars and Wippermann, Torben and Wisniewski, Lukasz and Kedziora, Bartosz and Vrettos, Christos and Lorenz, Ralph D. and Golombek, Matthew and Lichtenheldt, Roy and Grott, Matthias and Knollenberg, Joerg and Krause, Christian and Fantinati, Cinzia and Krueger, Torsten and Grygorczuk, Jerzy},
      journal = {Advances in Space Research},
      volume = {69},
      number = {8},
      pages = {3140--3163},
      year = {2022},
      doi = {10.1016/j.asr.2022.02.009},
      abstract = {The NASA InSight lander mission to Mars payload includes the Heat Flow and Physical Properties Package HP3 to measure the surface heat flow. The package was designed to use a small penetrator - nicknamed the mole - to implement a vertical string of temperature sensors in the soil to a depth of 5 m. The mole itself is equipped with sensors to measure a thermal conductivity-depth profile as it proceeds to depth. The heat flow is calculated from the product of the temperature gradient and the thermal conductivity. To avoid the perturbation caused by annual surface temperature variations, the measurements need to be taken at a depth between 3 m and 5 m. The mole is designed to penetrate cohesionless soil similar in rheology to quartz sand which is expected to provide a good analogue material for Martian sand. The sand would provide friction to the buried mole hull to balance the remaining recoil of the mole hammer mechanism that drives the mole forward. Unfortunately, the mole did not penetrate more than 40 cm, roughly a mole length. The failure to penetrate deeper is largely due to a cohesive duricrust of a few tens of centimeter thickness that failed to provide the required friction. Although a suppressor mass and spring as part of the mole hammer mechanism absorb much of the recoil, the available mass did not allow designing a system that fully eliminated the recoil. The mole penetrated to 40 cm depth benefiting from friction provided by springs in the support structure from which it was deployed and from friction and direct support provided by the InSight Instrument Deployment Arm. In addition, the Martian soil provided unexpected levels of penetration resistance that would have motivated designing a more powerful mole. The low weight of the mole support structure was not sufficient to guide the mole penetrating vertically. Roughly doubling the overall mass of the instrument package would have allowed to design a more robust system with little or no recoil, more energy of the mole hammer mechanism and a more massive support structure. In addition, to cope with duricrust a mechanism to support the mole to a depth of about two mole lengths should be considered.}
    }
  10. 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.}
    }
  11. Tunstel, E., Maimone, M., Trebi-Ollennu, A., Yen, J., Petras, R. and Wilson, R. (2005). Mars Exploration Rover mobility and robotic arm operational performance . IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Source
    BibTeX
    @inproceedings{tunstel2005mars,
      title = {Mars Exploration Rover mobility and robotic arm operational performance},
      author = {Tunstel, Edward and Maimone, Mark and Trebi-Ollennu, Ashitey and Yen, Jeng and Petras, Richard and Wilson, Reg},
      booktitle = {IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics},
      volume = {2},
      pages = {1807-1814},
      publisher = {IEEE},
      year = {2005},
      doi = {10.1109/icsmc.2005.1571410},
      abstract = {Increased attention has been focused in recent years on human-machine systems, how they are architected, and how they should operate. The purpose of this paper is to describe an actual instance of a practical human-robot system used on a NASA Mars rover mission that has been underway since January 2004 involving daily interaction between humans on Earth and mobile robots on Mars. The emphasis is on the human-robot collaborative arrangement and the performance enabled by mobility and robotic arm software functionality during the first 90 days of the mission. Mobile traverse distance, accuracy, and rate as well as robotic arm operational accuracy achieved by the system is presented.}
    }

Further reading

  • Arvidson, R. E., Ashley, J. W., Bell, J. F., Chojnacki, M., Cohen, J., Economou, T. E., Farrand, W. H., Fergason, R., Fleischer, I., Geissler, P., Gellert, R., Golombek, M. P., Grotzinger, J. P., Guinness, E. A., Haberle, R. M., Herkenhoff, K. E., Herman, J. A., Iagnemma, K. D., Jolliff, B. L., Johnson, J. R., Klingelhöfer, G., Knoll, A. H., Knudson, A. T., Li, R., McLennan, S. M., Mittlefehldt, D. W., Morris, R. V., Parker, T. J., Rice, M. S., Schröder, C., Soderblom, L. A., Squyres, S. W., Sullivan, R. J. and Wolff, M. J. (2011). Opportunity Mars Rover mission: Overview and selected results from Purgatory ripple to traverses to Endeavour crater . Journal of Geophysical Research. Source
  • Biesiadecki, J. J. and Maimone, M. W. (2006). The Mars Exploration Rover surface mobility flight software : driving ambition . IEEE Aerospace Conference. Source
  • Harrington, B. D. and Voorhees, C. (2004). The challenges of designing the rocker-bogie suspension for the Mars Exploration Rover . JPL Open Repository. Source
  • Lindemann, R. A. and Voorhees, C. J. (2005). Mars Exploration Rover mobility assembly design, test and performance . IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Source
  • (2024). NASA: Mars Exploration Rovers. science.nasa.gov/mission/mars-exploration-rovers-spirit-and-opportunity