NASA KSC Surface Autonomy Test Site

The KSC autonomy test site on 30 August 2024, during the five-day TRL 5 mission demonstration. A single stadium fixture at one end throws the long, hard-edged shadows the site is built to produce; the mock lander carries the fiducial targets used for pose estimation, and a small rover stands beside its leg.

NASA/Frank Micheaux. Public domain (NASA / US government work).

An enclosed, blacked-out analogue site at NASA KSC built by the ISRU Pilot Excavator project to test vision-based surface autonomy under lunar south pole illumination geometry. The article under test drives on prepared soil under six narrow beam stadium lights, navigates against a full-scale mock lander carrying fiducials, and is tracked by a 36 camera motion capture system whose pose solution is published as independent ground truth [1]. The site is listed by the KSC partnerships office as the Surface Autonomy Test Site [2].

Laboratory data

Parameter	Value
Operator	NASA KSC, ISRU Pilot Excavator project, STMD Game Changing Development
Location	NASA KSC, Florida, United States, 183 m east of the IPEx flight control building
Commissioned	Not published. First documented campaign August 2024
Type	Enclosed analogue surface site, blacked out, artificially lit
Floor area	39.6 x 21.3 m structure, 843 m2; practice area 33.5 x 21.3 m, 714 m2
Capabilities, area	Practice area, soil bed and rock field
Capabilities, fixtures	Lighting, mock lander
Simulant or terrain	Local Florida soil, tilled; albedo 0.26; baseline penetrometer resistance 0.5 kg/cm2
Instrumentation	36 OptiTrack Slim x13 motion capture cameras; 4 Axis situational cameras; Geotester penetrometer
Ground truth	OptiTrack beacon pose on a ROS topic, logged against vehicle telemetry
Fidelity limits	1 g, ambient atmosphere, terrestrial soil, no vacuum
Access	KSC partnerships office, Testing and Laboratories; no lead time or fee schedule published
Cited by	IPEx

Source: [1][2][4].

The site was built and is operated by the ISRU Pilot Excavator project under Space Technology Mission Directorate Game Changing Development [4]. The KSC partnerships office catalogs it as the Surface Autonomy Test Site, alongside the Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations laboratory and its Artemis Arena and ASSIST chamber; the operators’ own engineering name for it is the IPEx Autonomy Test-Site [2]. Temperature and humidity sensors are distributed through the site and reported over the site network, but nothing sets them. A Ubiquiti AirFiber radio link connects the site to the control building, with a local server ingesting situational imagery and running the OptiTrack and network video recorder software so that only tracker pose and compressed imagery cross the link; article Wi-Fi is routed through an access point on the mock lander, and all network equipment is on uninterruptible supplies.

Capabilities

Enclosed practice area

Parameter	Value
Working volume	Structure 39.6 x 21.3 m, 1.8 m sidewall, 6.1 m ridge; practice area 33.5 x 21.3 m
Test article limits	Largest article run: the 30 kg-class IPEx alpha configuration
Vacuum	Not applicable. Ambient Florida pressure and humidity
Temperature	Not controlled. Measured and reported, not set
Illumination	See the lighting; blackout panels block 95 percent of daylight
Simulant or terrain	Local Florida soil, tilled level; see the bed
Slope	Not applicable. The bed is prepared level
Gravity offload	Not applicable. 1 g
Instrumentation	36 OptiTrack Slim x13 cameras on the perimeter; 4 Axis situational cameras

Source: [1][2][4].

The enclosure is a fabric-covered galvanized tube structure. With blackout end panels installed and the two staging foyers curtained off, the usable rover practice area is 33.5 x 21.3 m [1][2]. Slope work on IPEx wheels is run separately in the GMRO Regolith Test Bed [5].

Site selection ran as two trade studies. The first compared KSC, Cape Canaveral Space Force Station and off-center land, and selected KSC on logistics. The second compared available real estate at KSC against existing buildings and settled on open ground 183 m east of the IPEx offices, which sets the ground control separation used during operations [1].

The structure requirement was an interior dark enough to stand in for the lunar sky, so that artificial lighting is the only source, combined with a Florida climate envelope covering humidity, rainfall, moisture accumulation and lightning protection, a hurricane rating, and Authority Having Jurisdiction fire and exit compliance. Lean-to structures, brick and mortar buildings, portable structures and hybrids such as CONEX box walls under a rolled steel arch roof were considered before a fabric-covered galvanized tube tent was procured.

Blackout is achieved with tarps suspended from the tubular trusses that run the width of the structure, and with split curtains at each end that separate the practice area from the staging foyers and seal in the center with black Velcro. More opaque panel material was available but not bought.

Blackout parameter	Value
Truss spacing	Every 3 m across the structure width
Panel material	95 percent light-blocking polyester weave
Cost of more opaque material	Above 40 percent price premium
Panel drape	About 25 cm down from the ridge at the center of each panel

Lunar illumination system

Parameter	Value
Illumination	6 RuggedGrade StadiumPro IV fixtures, 1400 W each, 5000 K, 200,200 lm, 20 degree beam
Working volume	Fixtures at one end of the 33.5 x 21.3 m practice area

Measured illuminance falls steeply across the practice area. The narrowest available 20 degree beam was chosen to sharpen shadow edges [1]. Varying solar elevation and azimuth is listed as future work.

Measured illuminance	Horizontal	Vertical
30 cm from the lights	78,000 lux	192,000 lux
Sunward face of the largest rock	9,500 lux	n/a
Foot of the lander	360 lux	2,345 lux
Far end of the structure	94 lux	850 lux

The lighting configuration was selected by simulation before procurement. A model built in the Unity engine with the high definition rendering pipeline was used because HDRP accepts physical photometric units and reports resulting illuminance, so candidate layouts could be scored for uniformity and shadow sharpness against a simulated lunar sunlight baseline. The six fixture StadiumPro IV layout was adopted as the compromise.

Lighting alternative considered	Outcome
Single Clar Illumi Max 300 LED, 132,000 lux at 0.5 m, 5600 K	Adequate for short range work, did not cover the area
48 fixture layout	Improved uniformity, destroyed shadow quality
ARRI Daylight 18 kW metal halide	High intensity from few fixtures, costly and hard to integrate

Side views from the test-site situational cameras showing single-source lighting and wheel tracks

Public domain (NASA / US government work).

Prepared soil bed and rock field

Parameter	Value
Simulant or terrain	Local Florida soil, tilled loose; albedo 0.26; baseline resistance 0.5 kg/cm2
Working volume	The 33.5 x 21.3 m practice area floor
Temperature	Not controlled
Instrumentation	Geotester pocket penetrometer, run as a survey after a campaign

The terrain is native Florida soil rather than a simulant. Preparation removes rocks above 7.6 cm and all vegetation and leaves a loose tilled surface resembling plowed earth, and penetrometer surveys run after the TRL 5 demonstration found that trafficked ground compacts to roughly twice the resistance of undisturbed ground, that the dig site compacted by as much as a factor of 11 from the 0.5 kg/cm2 baseline, and that the dump site loosened by a factor of 2.5 [1]. The operators read that across to the flight case: dig sites at the lunar south pole should be expected to compact progressively over a mission while dump sites become progressively looser.

Rock placement across the test-site floor generated from a Surveyor VI power law fit

Public domain (NASA / US government work).

The rock field is generated rather than arranged by eye: rocks are binned into discrete size ranges and placed at random positions at an areal density taken from a power law fit to Surveyor VI block counts, using the number of rocks per square meter between size bounds as N = a(d_min^b - d_max^b)/100 [1]. Cintala and McBride fitted power laws of the form N = a d^b to fragment size distributions measured from Surveyor surface photography [3].

Surveyor VI power law fit	Value
Rock size range placed	4 to 20 cm
a	0.154, errors +0.088/-0.019
b	-2.286, standard error 0.094
Correlation coefficient	0.983

Source: [3].

Mock lander

Parameter	Value
Working volume	2.75 m diameter, 1.2 m tall, standing in the practice area
Test article limits	Docking approach only; no published mass limit
Illumination	White top deck, gold metallic sides, silver metallic legs, lit by the stadium fixtures
Instrumentation	3 FLIR Blackfly S BFS-GE-88S6-M cameras, Kowa LM6JC 6 mm lenses; 16 AprilTag 36h11 fiducials

The lander is the navigation target and the site’s service node, 2.75 m in diameter and 1.2 m tall, finished with a white top deck, gold metallic sides and silver metallic legs, and carrying 16 AprilTag 36h11 fiducials, 15.24 x 15.24 cm overall with a 12.1 x 12.1 cm black-to-black edge, mounted along the top perimeter and at the mid-span of the legs and angle braces, and painted onto polycarbonate sheet, flat white vinyl for the light field and Musou black acrylic, quoted at up to 99.4 percent absorption, for the dark field, which holds tag contrast while suppressing specular return from the solar simulator [1].

Annotated view of the full-scale mock lander with fiducials, cameras and wireless charger coil

Public domain (NASA / US government work).

As the service node it carries a network switch onto the flight control room network, the article’s Wi-Fi access point, the temperature and humidity sensors, three fixed cameras, and a wireless charger transmit coil suspended on cables and offset from the front face so that an off-nominal docking approach cannot damage the coil or the article.

Instrumentation

Pose ground truth comes from 36 OptiTrack Slim x13 cameras around the perimeter of the practice area, tracking a beacon on the article [1]. An independent characterization of the same class of hardware, a 16-camera Primex41 array at NASA Glenn’s lunar soil bins, checked the system’s self-reported mean wand error of 0.17 mm against a linear stage and found it honest as an aggregate figure, but found error in specific regions of the working volume running higher where test hardware occludes cameras [10]; the site’s own published pose accuracy is not broken out by region. The pose is published on a ROS topic, so it is logged alongside the article’s own telemetry in the same time series database and is available to the out-of-simulation operators live.

Situational coverage is four Axis cameras: two Q6128-E pan-tilt-zoom units on the ceiling in the front corners, a third Q6128-E on a movable ground tripod, and an M3058-PLVE fixed fisheye at the ceiling center giving a whole-field overview. Access to these views is restricted to the simulation coordinator, so that the in-simulation operators see only what a flight downlink would carry.

The lander’s three FLIR Blackfly S BFS-GE-88S6-M cameras are fixed focus and fixed focal length with Kowa LM6JC 6 mm lenses: two side-facing units look at the dig and dump areas and one front-facing unit is angled down for docking verification, and during the TRL 5 run only the docking camera was used, on the assumption that the side cameras might not be available for a full flight mission [1].

Soil state is measured with a Geotester pocket penetrometer, run as a survey after a campaign rather than continuously, comparing undisturbed ground, trafficked ground, the dig site and the dump site.

What it does not reproduce

Gravity and granular behavior. The site runs at Earth gravity (see Laboratory data above). The operators state directly that replicating the granular properties of the lunar south pole remains a challenge under that gravity. Bearing capacity, sinkage and excavation reaction forces measured here are not transferable to lunar conditions without a separate model.

Regolith. The bed is local Florida soil. Lunar simulants such as LHS-1 were considered and rejected because of the logistical, financial and safety burden of handling simulant in a facility of this size. The stated compensation is that Florida soil still provides a challenging traverse and excavation medium for autonomy work, not that it reproduces regolith. Simulant-based mobility and excavation testing for the same program is run separately in the KSC Regolith Test Bed with BP-1 [5].

Optical properties. Measured site albedo (see Laboratory data above) runs well above published lunar surface albedo. The site is brighter and less absorbing than the terrain it stands in for, which biases exposure and contrast in the direction of an easier problem.

Illumination uniformity and collimation. Six point sources at finite distance do not approximate a collimated beam from an effectively infinite source; measured illuminance falls by two orders of magnitude across the practice area (see the illuminance table above). The operators describe this non-uniformity as a challenge for consistent imaging but reuse it deliberately, as a range of conditions for testing adaptive exposure as the article crosses from the bright to the dim end. Solar elevation and azimuth are fixed by the physical fixture placement; varying them is listed as future work.

Blackout. The panel weave blocks most but not all light, and the panels drape short of the floor, leaving the enclosure short of a true lunar sky (see the blackout table above).

Craters. No craters are present. The paper states that their inclusion is an ongoing effort and lists more diverse terrain features, craters of various sizes among them, as future work.

Rock statistics. The Surveyor VI fit was derived from fragments typically below 1 m seen in surface photography [3]. Cintala and McBride found that extrapolating those fits to blocks above 2.5 m overestimates the areal density measured from orbital photography at every site but Surveyor III, and that the cumulative block population is therefore probably nonlinear with different slopes over different size intervals [3]. The same work found the areal density of blocks within 1.1 crater radii to be about a factor of ten higher than the intercrater density at all three mare sites, a clustering the site’s uniform random placement does not reproduce. The paper also notes that the Surveyor VII highlands site near Tycho carried a far higher large-block density than the mare sites, and that a polar site may differ again from the Surveyor VI model adopted [1][3].

Dust. Electrostatic lofting, adhesion to lenses and radiators, and abrasion are named as lunar south pole problems in the same paper but are outside what the site addresses; the stated focus is the visual effects seen by camera-based systems. Thermal vacuum and dust exposure for the same program’s cameras were run in the ASSIST chamber at the GMRO lab instead [4], a dirty thermal vacuum chamber run from 760 torr down to 3.5e-6 torr with a xenon arc solar simulator and a regolith-bed build plate for combined excavation and additive construction testing under simulated lunar or Martian pressure [9]. Airborne dust itself is instrumented separately again, in the GMRO lab’s regolith bins rather than at either the autonomy site or ASSIST: a laser and camera extinction sensor there found that spot measurements of dust density collapse toward zero above roughly 1e10 particles per cubic meter, so side-scatter measurement is needed once a cloud gets that dense, and that dust raised by a nine-laser test array took about an hour to clear from a test bed [11].

Comparable sites and approaches

Vision-based surface autonomy is tested in four kinds of place, and the KSC site belongs to the first.

Enclosed, artificially lit yards. These trade terramechanics for control of the light. Two indoor analog yards in Luxembourg, 8 x 8 m with 3 tons of material and 7 x 11 m with 20 tons, were built for vision-based navigation and use graded basalt sand and gravel rather than simulant; their builders identify scene illumination, a single strong low tungsten source with matte black surroundings, as the largest factor in optical fidelity [12]. MoonRanger’s perception testbed at Carnegie Mellon University uses an 18 kW HMI cinematic fixture because lunar sunlight is brighter and spectrally different from terrestrial light, with blackout curtains to suppress diffuse return, and a line of blocks at known positions as reconstruction truth [13]. Neither source reports a photometric calibration against a lunar reference, and the KSC site is the only one of the three that publishes measured illuminance at several points [1][12][13]. None of the three has flown anything; they are ground sites.

Outdoor proving grounds. The DLR Moon-Mars site at Oberpfaffenhofen covers 1500 m2 with a 10 m wide, 2 m deep crater, a lava tube and 200 m navigation loops, and was exercised with autonomous navigation and sampling runs; it omits fine dust and cohesive fines [14]. JPL’s MarsYard III is an outdoor yard with seven variable slopes and rocks placed to Mars size distributions, with no published soil mechanics [15]. KSC’s own Artemis Arena is an outdoor BP-1 mare analog offered for mobility, excavation and autonomy testing, with no published simulant characterization [17]. These sites carry crater and slope terrain that the KSC autonomy site lacks, and none provides a controlled low-angle light source.

Scaled and field datasets. Verti-Arena is an 8 x 8 m reconfigurable indoor testbed with ten terrain types and eight-camera motion capture, used with a 1/10-scale vehicle for learned kinodynamics; it has no regolith, vacuum or lunar lighting [16]. The BASEPROD dataset recorded about 1.7 km of teleoperated traverses of a half-scale ExoMars-class rover in a Spanish semi-desert, with RTK GNSS ground truth [31].

Flight-hardware verification of the same functions. The Mars 2020 Lander Vision System was qualified by a captive-carry helicopter campaign over Mojave and Death Valley sites rather than in a ground yard [30]. Mars 2020’s Vehicle System Testbed twin, OPTIMISM, verifies avionics and rover integration rather than perception [29]. MoonRanger’s localization fuses wheel odometry, an IMU, a sun sensor and visual odometry, and its authors name low-mounted cameras with few features and wheel slip on soft terrain as the reasons a micro-rover is harder to localize [32]. The KSC site tests the autonomy stack end to end at 1 g, and the corpus holds no flown IPEx result.

Soil and simulant practice around the site

The site’s choice of native Florida soil sits against a body of simulant practice. KSC’s GMRO bins hold 120 tons of BP-1 in 25 x 25 ft and 2 tons of JSC-1a for dusty mechanism work [18], and the Big Bin that holds the 120 tons was built from aluminum scaffold and Lexan panels for full-scale robotic testing [21]. An earlier JSC-1A sandbox at NASA Ames served the Regolith Excavation Challenge and was opened to outside users under a 2009 agreement [28]. Geotechnical testing of six simulants found that particle size distribution alone is not a sufficient fidelity measure [22], and the Exolith Lab simulants are characterized by mineralogy, chemistry and particle size distribution [23]. Robotic vibratory compaction reached 80 percent relative density in both BP-1 and LHS-1 [26]. NASA’s consolidated mobility test guidance states that no standard simulants exist for the south pole and that no known facility reproduces the inertial effects of a fast vehicle [20]. The Mines Lunar Surface Simulator in Colorado is a recent addition to this set [27].

Hardware and dust practice near the site includes a 20.4 kg wheel-optimization rover for sweeping wheel geometry [24], a uniform simulant dust deposition system at NASA Glenn [25], and the IPEx actuator qualification in the Small Space Environment Dynamometer, which produced a bearing redesign after a rotor failure under accelerated life [19].

Campaigns run there

IPEx TRL 5 mission demonstration, August 2024. Five days of continuous operation beginning 25 August 2024, run as a mock mission against the IPEx concept of operations, which requires roughly 5.7 million actuator input revolutions and drives the actuator qualification program run in parallel at the GMRO lab [4]. The article was the alpha configuration of the TRL 5 hardware with larger external battery packs and surrogate avionics based on the final flight computer; all localization and autonomy software ran onboard. The site was configured with a statistically generated rock field unknown to the operators, low solar angle stadium lighting, reduced data transmission and a simulated 14 second round-trip delay standing in for a Commercial Lunar Payload Services lander relay, with ground control sitting in the IPEx flight control room 183 m from the site [1], with four telemetry displays on the flight control computer for in-simulation work and a separate console for the simulation coordinator carrying real-time, undelayed telemetry and imagery. Four shifts of four crew each ran the mission: primary operator, secondary operator, telemetry desk officer, and simulation coordinator, the last holding the only access to the situational cameras and performing out-of-simulation actions such as battery changes.

Measured result: continuous robot operation that, after subtracting thermal resets and wireless charging events, corresponded to a mock mission of several days of simulated time. Each repetition ran three drives, then excavation and unloading, then three more drives. The demonstration closed with operational margin in hand, and no equipment in the site lost power over the period.

Campaign result	Value
Continuous robot operation	77 h 46 min
Simulated mission time (after subtracting resets and charging)	205 h 18 min, about 8 days
Distance traversed	58.1 km across 334 mission repetitions
Maximum sustained drive speed	40 cm/s
Docking and recharge cycles	35, averaging 10 repetitions per battery charge
Drive length per leg	About 100 m, averaging nine minutes
Operational margin at close	59 h

Two datasets were released from the campaign. The instance segmentation set carries manually annotated instances across four classes: lander, rock, fiducial and fiducial inverse, with both bounding boxes and pixel-wise masks. Annotation was done in CVAT with Segment Anything as a serverless assist, with manual correction needed on heavily shadowed images. The imagery was collected not by IPEx but by a Clearpath Robotics Husky surrogate carrying prototype IPEx FLIR Blackfly S cameras with 6 mm Kowa lenses, driven in arcing and figure-of-eight patterns near the mock lander [1].

Instance segmentation dataset	Value
Images	2,343
Annotated instances	10,505
Mean mask area, lander	330,010 px
Mean mask area, rock	35,358 px
Mean mask area, fiducial	2,880 px
Mean mask area, inverse fiducial	2,361 px

The photogrammetry set was taken during the mapping phase of the mock mission from four cameras on synchronized intervals of linear driving. Stereo pairs were set to hyperfocal distance; the side cameras were manually focused to hold the lander at a fixed driving radius and ran a custom auto-exposure routine that exposed for the lander fiducials during arcing drives. The set has been processed into ground-based maps with COLMAP structure from motion and with neural radiance fields.

Photogrammetry dataset	Value
Images	1,514
Camera interval	Every 0.5 m of linear driving
Front and rear stereo pairs	IDS GV-51F1SE, Sony IMX547 sensor, binned to 1230 x 1028
Side cameras	Same sensor, binned to 2460 x 2056, monochrome
Side camera driving radius	7 m

Autonomous excavation algorithm development, 2022 onward. The autodig control work that the site’s excavation runs exercise was developed on the RASSOR 2 prototype in the GMRO lab regolith bin, not in the autonomy test site, because that bin holds BP-1 simulant [4]. RASSOR 2 is the counter-rotating bucket drum excavator IPEx descends from: two opposed drum pairs cancel the horizontal reaction force so the 66 kg vehicle can excavate without needing traction, at a design mass half that of its predecessor for double the payload capacity [7]. The force and torque a bucket drum of IPEx’s scale generates while cutting, which sizes the excavation rates the autonomy test site’s dig-and-dump cycle exercises, were measured separately on an instrumented gantry rather than at this site [8]. The autonomy test site is where the resulting stack is run end to end against a rock field and a lander, exercising the supervised autonomous navigation mode that the flight design assumes [4].

Wheel configuration testing, 2023 to 2024. Ten wheel configurations, drawn from 24 possible combinations of cleat shape and perforation, cleat spacing, and grouser shape, height and spacing, were driven on RASSOR 2.0 fitted with 30.5 cm IPEx-sized reconfigurable wheels as an IPEx surrogate in the KSC Regolith Test Bed, an 8 x 8 x 1.1 m bed holding 120 tons of BP-1 [5]. Tests covered circle driving, straight driving, a 20 degree prepared slope and drawbar pull, 83 tests in total, with slip computed from OptiTrack motion capture and power taken as summed motor current times pack voltage. Taller and squarer grousers slip less but draw more power, shorter and rounder grousers do the reverse, and solid versus perforated cleats made no discernible difference to either, so the lighter perforated cleats cost nothing; no single configuration won across all four test types, and the recommended baseline is a curved perforated cleat with short curved grousers [5]. This is the simulant-based counterpart to the autonomy site’s Florida soil traverses.

Navigation primitive development, 2022. The circular traverse pattern around the lander that the site’s layout is built to support was developed against dynamic movement primitives with an added obstacle avoidance term, modified to bound each obstacle’s influence by proximity rather than letting the sum of all obstacles push the trajectory outward, and evaluated first in the Simulated Excavation Environment for Lunar Operations, a Unity-based simulator with terrain deformation and modeled battery depletion, using a RASSOR 2.0 model in densely populated rock fields [6]. Across 10 rock distributions of 70 non-traversable rocks each at 0.15 rocks per square meter in a 22 x 22 m worksite, and a further 100 novel distributions, the modified method reached the goal with zero collisions in every run, against 426 collisions for the unmodified method and 425 for the original avoidance formulation, at a path-length cost of 44.11 plus or minus 0.65 m against a 43.45 m nominal circle [6]. The physical rock field in the test site is the corresponding hardware case.

What is not established

The commissioning date, pose accuracy by region, and photometric calibration of the six-fixture lighting against a lunar reference are not published for this site [1][2]. The only published campaign is the August 2024 TRL 5 demonstration, and the corpus holds no result from a second campaign or from an external user [1]. No flown IPEx result exists to compare against the site’s traverse and docking statistics [4]. Gravity, vacuum, dust, craters, and the effect of a collimated source are absent, so results on slip, sinkage and excavation force do not transfer to the lunar surface without a separate model [1][20]. The rock statistics extrapolate Surveyor surface photography to a polar site that none of the cited block surveys covered [3]. The ground truth sensor class has localized error that the published pose accuracy does not break out [10].

References

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.}
}

NASA Kennedy Space Center. (2025). Surface Autonomy Test Site. public.ksc.nasa.gov/partnerships/surface-autonomy-test-site

BibTeX

@misc{ksc2025surface,
  title = {Surface Autonomy Test Site},
  author = {{NASA Kennedy Space Center}},
  organization = {public.ksc.nasa.gov},
  year = {2025},
  url = {https://public.ksc.nasa.gov/partnerships/surface-autonomy-test-site/}
}

Cintala, M. J. and Mcbride, K. M. (1995). Block distributions on the lunar surface: A comparison between measurements obtained from surface and orbital photography . NASA, NASA-TM-104804. Source

BibTeX

@techreport{cintala1995block,
  title = {Block distributions on the lunar surface: A comparison between measurements obtained from surface and orbital photography},
  author = {Cintala, Mark J. and Mcbride, Kathleen M.},
  number = {NASA-TM-104804},
  institution = {NASA},
  year = {1995},
  url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19960011631},
  abstract = {Among the hazards that must be negotiated by lunar-landing spacecraft are blocks on the surface of the Moon. Unfortunately, few data exist that can be used to evaluate the threat posed by such blocks to landing spacecraft. Perhaps the best information is that obtained from Surveyor photographs, but those data do not extend to the dimensions of the large blocks that would pose the greatest hazards. Block distributions in the vicinities of the Surveyor 1, 3, 6, and 7 sites have been determined from Lunar Orbiter photography and are presented here. Only large (i.e., greater than or equal to 2.5 m) blocks are measurable in these pictures, resulting in a size gap between the Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter distributions. Nevertheless, the orbital data are self-consistent, a claim supported by the similarity in behavior between the subsets of data from the Surveyor 1, 3, and 6 sites and by the good agreement in position (if not slopes) between the data obtained from the Surveyor 3 photography and those derived from the Lunar Orbiter photographs. Confidence in the results is also justified by the well-behaved distribution of large blocks at the surveyor site. Comparisons between the Surveyor distributions and those derived from the orbital photography permit these observations: (1) in all cases but that for Surveyor 3, the density of large blocks is overestimated by extrapolation of the Surveyor-derived trends; (2) the slopes of the Surveyor-derived distributions are consistently lower than those determined for the large blocks; and (3) these apparent disagreements could be mitigated if the overall shapes of the cumulative lunar block populations were nonlinear, allowing for different slopes over different size intervals. The relatively large gaps between the Surveyor-derived and Orbiter-derived data sets, however, do not permit a determination of those shapes.}
}

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.}
}

Zhang, L., Schuler, J., Dokos, A., Xu, Y., Bell, E. and Muller, T. (2024). ISRU Pilot Excavator Wheel Testing in Lunar Regolith Simulant . ASCE Earth and Space Conference, 20240001016. Source

BibTeX

@inproceedings{zhang2024isru,
  title = {ISRU Pilot Excavator Wheel Testing in Lunar Regolith Simulant},
  author = {Zhang, Liz and Schuler, Jason and Dokos, Adam and Xu, Yinan and Bell, Evan and Muller, Thomas},
  booktitle = {ASCE Earth and Space Conference},
  number = {20240001016},
  pages = {173-187},
  institution = {NASA},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.1061/9780784485736.016},
  abstract = {The ISRU Pilot Excavator (IPEx), is a robotic excavator funded by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD). The Concept of Operations for IPEx involves the robot driving on the lunar surface up to 70 km at a speed of up to 30 cm/s. As such, it is critical to the mission’s success to optimize the design of the wheels for performance in lunar conditions, specifically in lunar regolith. To achieve this, an array of tests was completed to observe the effects of various wheel design choices on the driving performance of the wheels in lunar regolith simulant. In order to facilitate testing, we designed a 12 in. dia. configurable wheel to allow for interchangeability between various wheel formations. Two types of wheel parts were designed to be swapped: cleats, which form the tread of the wheel; and grousers, which protrude from the treads. The test variables that we considered were as follows: square versus round wheel shape, solid versus perforated cleats, cleat spacing, grouser height, and grouser spacing. By combining different settings of each of these test variables, 10 discrete wheel designs were created and tested. The configurable test wheels were mounted on the Regolith Advanced Surface Systems Operations Robot (RASSOR) developed at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. In our experiments, the robot was driven at a controlled speed across a prepared surface of BP-1 lunar regolith simulant. Four types of tests were conducted: circle driving, straight driving, slope driving, and drawbar pull. The driving tests were chosen to mimic a variety of conditions in which IPEx may be expected to operate, and the drawbar pull test was chosen to provide a standard of comparison with existing wheel design literature. The circle and straight driving tests were each performed at different levels: for the circle driving test, the robot was driven at a constant linear speed and three different angular speeds, while for the straight driving test, the robot was driven at three different linear speeds. The data collected from these tests included the power usage from each of the wheels, measurements of the tread patterns left in the regolith surface, and the amount of slip the wheels experienced, which was calculated using data from an OptiTrack motion capture system. From the results of these experiments, we found that certain test variables were more significant than others in determining performance for each type of test, and no single wheel design clearly outperformed the others in all areas. The details of our findings will be discussed further in this paper. These data will be utilized to inform the design of the wheels for IPEx and can provide a basis for the design of wheels for future lunar terrain vehicles.}
}

Cloud, J. M., Tram, M. Q., Beksi, W. J. and Dupuis, M. A. (2023). Lunar Excavator Mission Operations using Dynamic Movement Primitives . IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 20220014197. Source

BibTeX

@inproceedings{cloud2023lunar,
  title = {Lunar Excavator Mission Operations using Dynamic Movement Primitives},
  author = {Cloud, Joseph M. and Tram, Minh Q. and Beksi, William J. and Dupuis, Michael A.},
  booktitle = {IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems},
  number = {20220014197},
  pages = {10708-10715},
  institution = {NASA},
  year = {2023},
  doi = {10.1109/iros55552.2023.10342005},
  abstract = {To support sustainable infrastructure on the Moon, NASA must leverage robots to extract lunar resources for in-situ processing and construction. As part of this effort, NASA is launching the in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) Pilot Excavator later this decade to validate a robotic regolith excavator based on the Regolith Advanced Surface Systems Operations Robot (RASSOR). RASSOR is designed to extract and transport regolith to meet the needs of ISRU architectures. During its mission, Pilot Excavator will be tasked with driving in test patterns to demonstrate the operational concept. One possible test pattern is a circular trajectory around the lander while avoiding surface hazards such as lunar rocks. To this end, we utilize dynamic movement primitives to represent navigation sequences as primitive trajectories. We introduce a novel obstacle avoidance parameter, which is configured to avoid rocks throughout testing exercises. We demonstrate the effectiveness our method in a newly developed simulation tool called the Simulated Excavation Environment for Lunar Operations (SEELO) using models based on the NASA RASSOR 2.0 excavator. Our results show that the robot is able to safety and robustly navigate the lunar surface with densely populated rock obstacles while retaining the desired circle pattern behavior.}
}

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.}
}

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.}
}

NASA Kennedy Space Center. (2025). Advanced Regolith Ground Operations (ARGO) Test Bed and the ASSIST Chamber. public.ksc.nasa.gov/partnerships/advanced-regolith-ground-operations-...

BibTeX

@misc{ksc2025advanced,
  title = {Advanced Regolith Ground Operations (ARGO) Test Bed and the ASSIST Chamber},
  author = {{NASA Kennedy Space Center}},
  organization = {public.ksc.nasa.gov},
  year = {2025},
  url = {https://public.ksc.nasa.gov/partnerships/advanced-regolith-ground-operations-argo-test-bed-a-robotic-excavation-and-construction-test-facility-with-simulated-lunar-environments/}
}

Schepelmann, A. and Gerdts, S. (2022). Characterization of Infrared Optical Motion Tracking System in NASA's Simulated Lunar Operations (SLOPE) Laboratory . NASA, NASA/TM-20220005304. Source

BibTeX

@techreport{schepelmann2022characterization,
  title = {Characterization of Infrared Optical Motion Tracking System in NASA's Simulated Lunar Operations (SLOPE) Laboratory},
  author = {Schepelmann, Alexander and Gerdts, Stephen},
  number = {NASA/TM-20220005304},
  institution = {NASA},
  year = {2022},
  url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20220005304},
  abstract = {This work characterizes the accuracy of a 16 camera OptiTrack motion tracking system installed in NASA Glenn Research Center's Simulated Lunar Operations (SLOPE) laboratory.  The position of a rigid body mounted on a motorized linear stage is compared to its position reported by the motion tracking system as it travels through the facility's 777m$^3$ capture volume of interest.  Experiments show that the mean error reported by the motion tracking system for the aggregate capture volume is in-line with independent measurements collected using the motion stage.  Error within regions of the capture volume exceed the mean error reported by the motion tracking system, likely due to occlusion, and suggests that additional cameras should be used to increase measurement accuracy in these regions.  Overall, results show that error values reported by the motion tracking system are representative of the measurement error in a collected data set and validates the system's use for characterizing the mobility and tractive performance of robots, rovers, and other vehicles for planetary exploration.}
}

Lane, J. E., Mantovani, J., Mueller, R., Nugent, M., Nick, A., Schuler, J. and Townsend, I. I. (2016). Optical Extinction Measurements of Dust Density in the GMRO Regolith Test Bin . ASCE Earth and Space Conference, 20160005055. Source

BibTeX

@inproceedings{lane2016optical,
  title = {Optical Extinction Measurements of Dust Density in the GMRO Regolith Test Bin},
  author = {Lane, John E. and Mantovani, J. and Mueller, R. and Nugent, M. and Nick, A. and Schuler, J. and Townsend, Ivan I.},
  booktitle = {ASCE Earth and Space Conference},
  number = {20160005055},
  pages = {36-47},
  institution = {NASA},
  year = {2016},
  doi = {10.1061/9780784479971.005},
  abstract = {A regolith simulant test bin was constructed and completed in the Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations (GMRO) Lab in 2013. This planetary regolith test bed (PRTB) is a 64 m2 × 1 m deep test bin housed in a climate-controlled facility and contains 120 MT of lunar-regolith simulant, called Black Point-1 or BP-1, from Black Point, AZ. One of the current uses of the test bin is to study the effects of difficult lighting and dust conditions on telerobotic perception systems to better assess and refine regolith operations for asteroid, Mars, and polar lunar missions. Low illumination and low angle of incidence lighting pose significant problems to computer vision and human perception. Levitated dust on asteroids interferes with imaging and degrades depth perception. Dust storms on Mars pose a significant problem. Due to these factors, the likely performance of telerobotics is poorly understood for future missions. Current space telerobotic systems are only operated in bright lighting and dust-free conditions. This technology development testing will identify: (1) the impact of degraded lighting and environmental dust on computer vision and operator perception, (2) potential methods and procedures for mitigating these impacts, (3) requirements for telerobotic perception systems for asteroid capture, Mars dust storms, and lunar regolith ISRU missions.}
}

Ludivig, P., Calzada-Diaz, A., Olivares Mendez, M. A., Voos, H. and Lamamy, J. (2020). Building a Piece of the Moon: Construction of Two Indoor Lunar Analogue Environments . International Astronautical Congress, IAC-20-A3.2B.3. Source

BibTeX

@inproceedings{ludivig2020building,
  title = {Building a Piece of the {Moon}: Construction of Two Indoor Lunar Analogue Environments},
  author = {Ludivig, Philippe and Calzada-Diaz, Abigail and Olivares Mendez, Miguel Angel and Voos, Holger and Lamamy, Julien},
  booktitle = {International Astronautical Congress},
  number = {IAC-20-A3.2B.3},
  organization = {International Astronautical Federation},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://orbilu.uni.lu/handle/10993/45539}
}

(2021). MoonRanger project log: Perception Testbed and Lighting. labs.ri.cmu.edu/moonranger/perception-testbed-and-lighting

BibTeX

@misc{moonrangerprojectlogperception,
  title = {MoonRanger project log: Perception Testbed and Lighting},
  organization = {labs.ri.cmu.edu},
  year = {2021},
  url = {https://labs.ri.cmu.edu/moonranger/perception-testbed-and-lighting/}
}

Görner, M., Cebulsky, J., Dömel, A., Durner, M., Giubilato, R., Kuhne, M., Müller, M. G., Lakatos, K., Lehner, P., Lichtenheldt, R., Rebele, B., Roser, M., Sakagami, R., Scheeler, Y., Schuster, M. J., Schütt, M., Stürzl, W., Vayugundla, M. and Wedler, A. (2024). The DLR Moon-Mars Test Site for Robotic Planetary Exploration . International Conference on Space Robotics. Source

BibTeX

@inproceedings{goerner2024dlr,
  title = {The DLR Moon-Mars Test Site for Robotic Planetary Exploration},
  author = {Görner, Martin and Cebulsky, Jennifer and Dömel, Andreas and Durner, Maximilian and Giubilato, Riccardo and Kuhne, Moritz and Müller, Marcus G. and Lakatos, Kristin and Lehner, Peter and Lichtenheldt, Roy and Rebele, Bernhard and Roser, Mattias and Sakagami, Ryo and Scheeler, Yunis and Schuster, Martin J. and Schütt, Manuel and Stürzl, Wolfgang and Vayugundla, Mallikarjuna and Wedler, Armin},
  booktitle = {International Conference on Space Robotics},
  pages = {245-252},
  institution = {DLR Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.1109/isparo60631.2024.10687411},
  abstract = {Building robots for planetary exploration missions requires intensive testing throughout all phases of the design process. Especially, during hard- and software development as well as mission training the process benefits of easy-to-access test sites that offer realistic conditions. For this purpose we have built the 1500 m2DLR Moon-Mars test site in Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany. The facility provides a large variety of geological formations and ground substrates on a compact terrain as well as a rich set of power and network connections. As a unique feature of the outdoor test site, we prepared a dedicated link to the German Space Operations Center that enables telerobotic experiments from ISS. Furthermore, we provide an optical tracking system for ground truth measurement and control. We describe the design and construction process of the test site and present an overview of its features. Three experiments with our robots LRU1, LRU2 and the Scout rover regarding autonomous navigation and mapping, autonomous manipulation and sampling as well as advanced mobility tests demonstrate the usage of the test site.}
}

NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (2026). The MarsYard III. www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/how-we-do-it/facilities/marsyard-iii

BibTeX

@misc{jplmarsyard,
  title = {The MarsYard III},
  author = {{NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory}},
  organization = {www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/how-we-do-it/facilities/marsyard-iii/}
}

Chen, H., Datar, A., Xu, T., Cancelliere, F., Rangwala, H., Rao, M. B., Song, D., Eichinger, D. and Xiao, X. (2025). Verti-Arena: A Controllable and Standardized Indoor Testbed for Multi-Terrain Off-Road Autonomy . IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics. Source

BibTeX

@inproceedings{chen2025verti,
  title = {Verti-Arena: A Controllable and Standardized Indoor Testbed for Multi-Terrain Off-Road Autonomy},
  author = {Chen, Haiyue and Datar, Aniket and Xu, Tong and Cancelliere, Francesco and Rangwala, Harsh and Rao, Madhan Balaji and Song, Daeun and Eichinger, David and Xiao, Xuesu},
  booktitle = {IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security, and Rescue Robotics},
  pages = {133-138},
  year = {2025},
  doi = {10.1109/ssrr68451.2025.11391317},
  abstract = {Off-road navigation is an important capability for mobile robots deployed in environments that are inaccessible or dangerous to humans, such as disaster response or planetary exploration. Progress is limited due to the lack of a controllable and standardized real-world testbed for systematic data collection and validation. To fill this gap, we introduce Verti-Arena, a reconfigurable indoor facility designed specifically for off-road autonomy. By providing a repeatable benchmark environment, Verti-Arena supports reproducible experiments across a variety of vertically challenging terrains and provides precise ground truth measurements through onboard sensors and a motion capture system. Verti-Arena also supports consistent data collection and comparative evaluation of algorithms in off-road autonomy research. We also develop a web-based interface that enables research groups worldwide to remotely conduct standardized off-road autonomy experiments on Verti-Arena.}
}

NASA Kennedy Space Center. (2025). Artemis Arena. public.ksc.nasa.gov/partnerships/artemis-arena

BibTeX

@misc{ksc2025artemis,
  title = {Artemis Arena},
  author = {{NASA Kennedy Space Center}},
  organization = {public.ksc.nasa.gov},
  year = {2025},
  url = {https://public.ksc.nasa.gov/partnerships/artemis-arena/}
}

NASA Kennedy Space Center. (2024). Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations (GMRO). public.ksc.nasa.gov/partnerships/capabilities-and-testing/testing-and...

BibTeX

@misc{ksc2024granular,
  title = {Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations (GMRO)},
  author = {{NASA Kennedy Space Center}},
  organization = {public.ksc.nasa.gov},
  year = {2024},
  url = {https://public.ksc.nasa.gov/partnerships/capabilities-and-testing/testing-and-labs/granular-mechanics-and-regolith-operations-gmro/}
}

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.}
}

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.}
}

DeFilippo, A. R. (2013). Kennedy Space Center: Swamp Works . NASA, 20140002674. Source

BibTeX

@techreport{defilippo2013kennedy,
  title = {Kennedy Space Center: Swamp Works},
  author = {DeFilippo, Anthony Robert},
  number = {20140002674},
  institution = {NASA},
  type = {Presentation},
  year = {2013},
  url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20140002674},
  abstract = {When I began my internship with the Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations laboratory (GMRO), also known as Swamp Works, I was given the unique opportunity to shadow many teams working on various projects, and decide what projects I wanted to take part in. Before I go into details of my experiences at Swamp Works, I would like to take a moment to explain what I discovered Swamp Works to be. Swamp Works is a family of hardworking, dedicated, and driven people from various backgrounds and skill sets. These people all work to advance technologies and make science fiction science fact through means of rapid prototyping. They support and encourage failure as an option when learning new things, as long as lesson learned from said failure. In fact, their motto states "Fail, Fast, Forward." What this means is, not if but when one fails he or she must do so quickly and spring forward from the failure so that his or her progress is not delayed. With this acceptance, it provided me the confidence to dive into a multitude of projects working in various fields and with a wide range of skill sets. The first project I joined was Badger. My motivation for taking on this project was the opportunity I would have to obtain valuable experience working with 3D modeling and 3D printing technologies. Badger was a digging apparatus to be used in a highly dusty environment in a material known as Regolith. Regolith is a scientific term for the dirt or top soil found on planetary bodies. Regolith contains a large quantity of sediments less than lOppm and as a result poses a challenge of keeping it out of any cracks and crevices. Furthermore, regolith can create high levels of electrostatic energy, which can prove damaging to sensitive electrical hardware. With these characteristics in mind, I decided to take on the task of designing and manufacturing a dust proof cover for the sensitive electrical hardware. When I began this project, I did not have the slightest idea as to how to use 3D modeling software or a means of manufacturing a viable product. As I went along with variants of the design, I became very proficient with a 3D modeling program known as CREO 2.0. Upon completion of my 3D design, I then had the task of manufacturing and having, in my hands, a usable model. To do this I had to work with additive printing technologies also known as 3D printing. Through my experiences working with Badger, I realized that 3D modeling is the focal point in much of engineering. With this in mind, I have embraced this fact and decided to further my experience with this software so that I may become a more valuable asset to any firm later in my career. Mid-way through work with Badger, I picked up another project in which I found much interest. I ha~ the opportunity to work side by side with a materials and composites guru in manufacturing carbon composite coupons (test strips) for performing stress, strain, and sheer analysis on. Being from a surfing, kiteboarding, and other water sport background I have always been interested in board design. With this in mind, it is no wonder why I found interest in such a project. I had the opportunity to refine Mold preparatory, composite layup, and composite curing techniques. Following manufacturing of these composite strips, I then performed various stress tests and logged my results. With these results, future teams could create lighter, stronger, and more cost effective composite structures for use in varieties of applications. After my experiences with materials and composites testing, I have obtained crucial appreciation for detailed documentation and analysis that material sciences involve. However, as interesting as composite materials testing has been, I do not feel this is where my future career lies. Another, more on the side, project I have been involved in is building a 626 cubic foot regolith containment chamber for doing full scale testing of robotic systems. This chamber is built of high strength aluminum scaffold materials, 80/20, and massive panels of Lexan. Once the chamber is completed, it is be filled with 120 tons of regolith and dubbed the largest regolith test chamber in the world. Through my experiences with building "Big Bin" as we called it, I discovered my demand for engaging and hands on activities. Through all of my incredible experiences working with the Swamp Works at Kennedy Space Center; I have obtained crucial knowledge, insights, and experiences that have fuelled, shaped, and will continue to drive me toward my ultimate goal of obtaining not only a degree in Engineering, but obtaining a job that I can call a career. I want to give much thanks to all of those who mentored me along my journey, and to all who made this opportunity a reality.}
}

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.}
}

Long-Fox, J. M. and Britt, D. T. (2023). Characterization of Planetary Regolith Simulants for the Research and Development of Space Resource Technologies . Frontiers in Space Technologies. Source

BibTeX

@article{longfox2023characterization,
  title = {Characterization of Planetary Regolith Simulants for the Research and Development of Space Resource Technologies},
  author = {Long-Fox, Jared M. and Britt, Daniel T.},
  journal = {Frontiers in Space Technologies},
  volume = {4},
  pages = {1255535},
  year = {2023},
  doi = {10.3389/frspt.2023.1255535},
  abstract = {Human planetary exploration and colonization efforts are reliant on the ability to safely interact with planetary surfaces and to leverage local regolith as a resource. The high-cost and risk-intensive nature of establishing planetary infrastructure and resource utilization facilities necessitates risk reduction through laboratory-based research and development of space resource acquisition, processing, and extraction technologies using appropriate, well-characterized, mineral-based regolith simulants. Such simulants enable the planetary exploration and resource utilization communities to test large-scale technologies and methodologies for a relatively low cost as an alternative to scarce and expensive returned samples. The fidelity of a regolith simulant for any application is, in part, determined by the mineralogical composition and particle size distribution. The importance of composition is well established for in situ resource utilization studies sensitive to geochemical properties but tends to be ignored in studies concerned with physical properties. Neglecting to consider mineralogy reduces the fidelity of a simulant since each mineral species has its own unique grain density, preferred grain geometry, and intergranular forces, all of which affect the physical properties of the simulant (e.g., shear strength, bearing strength, bulk density, thermal and electrical properties, magnetic properties). Traditionally, regolith simulants have been limited in quantity and availability; Exolith Lab remedies these problems by designing simulants in a constrained maximization approach to fidelity relative to cost, material availability, and safety. Exolith Lab simulants are designed to approximate the mineralogy and particle size ranges of the planetary regolith being simulated, with composition constrained by remote sensing observations and/or returned sample analyses. With facilities and equipment capable of high-volume simulant production, Exolith Lab offers standard simulants in bulk that are readily available for purchase and shipment. This work reviews the production methods, equipment, and materials used to create Exolith Lab simulants, provides compositional data, particle size data, and applications for each standard lunar, Martian, and asteroid simulant that Exolith Lab offers.}
}

Gerdts, S., Breckenridge, J. and Johnson, K. (2022). Lunar Rover Optimization Platform for Wheel Traction Studies . NASA Glenn Research Center, 20200003006. Source

BibTeX

@techreport{gerdts2022lunar,
  title = {Lunar Rover Optimization Platform for Wheel Traction Studies},
  author = {Gerdts, Stephen and Breckenridge, John and Johnson, Kyle},
  number = {20200003006},
  institution = {NASA Glenn Research Center},
  year = {2022},
  doi = {10.26226/m.632b0aa4f30377bc3bafa246},
  abstract = {Robotic mobility systems expand the reach of future scientific and exploration missions to celestial bodies. Understanding the traction performance of these systems is necessary knowledge that informs mission-level requirements, such as power budgets and navigation envelopes. This paper covers the design, development, and verification of the four wheeled Lunar Rover Optimization Platform (LROP). This mass optimized platform is targeted to emulate future medium class rovers weighing up to 90 kg. The LROP has the ability to conduct various wheel design experiments such as obstacle traversal, slope ascent, and drawbar pull over a wheel loading range of 4.5 to 22.7 kg. The platform also has the ability to shift its center of gravity (CG) laterally and longitudinally to explore the CG shift effects on mobility performance. This knowledge is valuable for future rover designers exploring different payload packaging solutions. In this paper results from obstacle traversal test with varying angle of attack (AOA) and longitudinal CG position are reported along with results from slope ascent testing which proved-out the LROPs capabilities.}
}

Gerdts, S., Jimenez, N. and Dunlap, P. H. J. (2021). Lunar Simulant Deposition Technique for Dust Tolerance Studies . NASA, 20210024128. Source

BibTeX

@techreport{gerdts2021lunar,
  title = {Lunar Simulant Deposition Technique for Dust Tolerance Studies},
  author = {Gerdts, Stephen and Jimenez, Nathan and Dunlap, Patrick H., Jr.},
  number = {20210024128},
  institution = {NASA},
  year = {2021},
  url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20210024128},
  abstract = {A renewed interest in lunar exploration has spawned an array of development efforts for lunar surface assets. These systems depend on the reliable operation of mechanisms and components that may be susceptible to performance degradations or failure due to dust. The Uniform Dust Deposition System was developed at the NASA Glenn Research Center to provide repeatable, uniform, and automated deposition of simulants on surfaces of interest for dust mitigation testing. The system is capable of depositing simulants on test articles up to 60 cm in diameter and 15 cm high in a dry air environment with less than 1 percent relative humidity while keeping users safe from aerosolized dust. The automation of the system allows for
high testing throughput while not sacrificing test quality and allows the user to reduce data in parallel. The additional development of a simulant preparation technique complements the repeatability of the deposition physics during testing. The system includes an imaging subsystem that leverages the power of machine learning to count simulant particles and measure their size, thereby allowing for accurate predictions of
surface deposition densities (coefficient of determination R^(2) = 0.93) from images alone. The coverage of dust on a surface was shown to be uniform (coefficient of variation CV < 0.11), allowing developers to accurately evaluate the performance of their technology with a prescribed amount of lunar simulant, information that can be used to develop and refine models. The accuracy of the system is currently less than desired for a single deposition run, with a standard deviation (SD) ranging from 18 to 24 mg, or 0.839 to 1.184 mg/sq. cm , for a 5-cm-diameter area. However, the accuracy can be improved by performing multiple deposition runs to build dust to a desired level. Testing has shown that a SD of 0.2 to 0.6 mg, or 0.076 to 0.227 mg/sq. cm, can be achieved for a 5-cm-diameter area using this technique. }
}

Bell, E. A., Kemmerer, B. W., Gelino, N. J., Sibille, L., Holmgren, G. M., Flowers, P. F. and Rao-Aourpally, V. (2025). Vibratory Plate Compaction of BP-1 and LHS-1 Utilizing the Planetary Automated Compaction Tool (PACT) . NASA, 20250005172. Source

BibTeX

@techreport{bell2025vibratory,
  title = {Vibratory Plate Compaction of BP-1 and LHS-1 Utilizing the Planetary Automated Compaction Tool (PACT)},
  author = {Bell, E. A. and Kemmerer, B. W. and Gelino, Nathan J. and Sibille, Laurent and Holmgren, G. M. and Flowers, P. F. and Rao-Aourpally, V.},
  number = {20250005172},
  institution = {NASA},
  year = {2025},
  url = {https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20250005172},
  abstract = {The Multifunctional End Effector for Regolith Construction, Acquisition, and Transfer (MEERCAT) is a robotic arm end effector developed by the Swamp Works Granular Mechanics and Regolith Operations (GMRO) lab [1]. This system has several capabilities including excavation, trenching, regolith size screening, compaction, and geotechnical property measurement.

The NASA Tipping Point Project, Mason, led by Redwire Space, in partnership with the Swamp Works GMRO lab, has continued development and refinement of the PACT system’s compaction capabilities, specifically, under the new moniker Planetary Automated Compaction Tool (PACT). A test campaign in ambient laboratory conditions was conducted using Black Point-1 (BP-1) and Lunar Highlands-1 (LHS-1) simulants in the GMRO’s Big Bin test facility utilizing the Excavation Test Stand (ETS) 2-axis gantry. Along with this work a correlation curve was developed to estimate bulk surface compaction based on surface pocket penetrometer readings of penetration force into simulant.

The tests revealed the PACT system to be capable of achieving 80% relative density (%RD) in BP-1 and LHS-1 using a dual-mass excentric mass motor. Testing showed that the Spot compaction method was more capable of compaction at depth (below 51 mm) than the Raster method. Several other conclusions were made including that higher static compaction pressure improved compaction at depth, and that longer surface contact times provided diminishing returns on compaction performance. A correlation between the ambient testing in LHS-1 performed as part of this test campaign and previous work performed in-vacuum conditions using LHS-1 is also shown over a test sample set.}
}

David, L. (2025). New Lunar Surface Simulator in Colorado Puts Moon Machinery to the Test. space.com/astronomy/moon/new-lunar-surface-simulator-in-colorado-puts...

BibTeX

@misc{david2025lunar,
  title = {New Lunar Surface Simulator in Colorado Puts Moon Machinery to the Test},
  author = {David, Leonard},
  organization = {Space.com},
  year = {2025},
  url = {https://www.space.com/astronomy/moon/new-lunar-surface-simulator-in-colorado-puts-moon-machinery-to-the-test}
}

Everingham, M. and Pelster, N. (2009). Lunar Analog Creation: Preparation and Operation of a Lunar Regolith Simulant Testbed . AIAA SPACE Conference. Source

BibTeX

@inproceedings{everingham2009lunar,
  title = {Lunar Analog Creation: Preparation and Operation of a Lunar Regolith Simulant Testbed},
  author = {Everingham, Matt and Pelster, Nick},
  booktitle = {AIAA SPACE Conference},
  publisher = {American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics},
  year = {2009},
  doi = {10.2514/6.2009-6510}
}

Matthes, C., Stumbo, M. and Foley, J. (2021). How to Build a Rover: An Overview of the Mars 2020 Mission's Vehicle System Testbed . IEEE Aerospace Conference. Source

BibTeX

@inproceedings{matthes2021how,
  title = {How to Build a Rover: An Overview of the Mars 2020 Mission's Vehicle System Testbed},
  author = {Matthes, Christopher and Stumbo, Matthew and Foley, Justin},
  booktitle = {IEEE Aerospace Conference},
  pages = {1-12},
  year = {2021},
  doi = {10.1109/aero53065.2022.9843658},
  abstract = {While NASA's Mars rover Perseverance continues to make groundbreaking achievements on the Red Planet, its twin is hard at work here on Earth. The Operational Perseverance Twin for the Integration of Mechanisms and Instruments Sent to Mars, or OPTIMISM, is the Mars 2020 Vehicle System Testbed (VSTB) rover operated by NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California. OPTIMISM's home is the JPL Mars Yard; an outdoor field with red soil that simulates the terrain encountered by Perseverance. The VSTB is a full-scale engineering model of the flight rover, serving a number of functions to ensure mission operations can continue smoothly and on schedule. The VSTB possesses instrumentation, computers, mechanisms, cameras, and a Mobility subsystem that are nearly identical to its extraterrestrial twin. Its high fidelity allows the rover to be a highly effective tool to fully test system functionality and performance prior to commanding the flight rover. The early stages of building OPTIMISM began a few months prior to Perseverance departing JPL for Cape Canaveral, FL in early 2020. Electrical integration of the flight system avionics, and compatibility checkouts of the electrical ground support equipment ensured that the foundation of the electrical system was operational and in place. Next, the internal harnessing was installed and compatibility checks of the rover instrumentation and mechanisms were performed to confirm the system was prepared for full buildup. Finally, mechanical assembly of the rover chassis with its external components completed the integration of the system before it was moved to the Mars Yard for its initial phase of testing to perform verification & validation (V&V) of the Mobility subsystem requirements. By the time Perseverance landed at Jezero Crater in February 2021, the first phase of VSTB operations was underway. Surface guidance, navigation, and control (SGNC) testing for the Mobility subsystem ensured functionality and performance requirements were met for various capabilities such as visual odometry (VO), mapping, and automatic navigation (AutoNav). Subsequent integration of the robotic arm (RA) onto the VSTB enabled the V&V campaign for surface sampling operations (SSO) to commence. As the mission's engineering operations (EO) have gotten underway, the VSTB has been utilized for an array of purposes including troubleshooting software anomalies, and performing dry-runs for first time activities (FTAs) prior to sending the commands to Perseverance. OPTIMISM will continue to serve mission critical functions as long as Perseverance is roving the Red Planet.}
}

Johnson, A., Villaume, N., Umsted, C., Kourchians, A., Sternberg, D., Trawny, N., Cheng, Y., Geipel, E. and Montgomery, J. (2020). The Mars 2020 Lander Vision System Field Test . Annual AAS Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference. Source

BibTeX

@inproceedings{johnson2020bmars,
  title = {The Mars 2020 Lander Vision System Field Test},
  author = {Johnson, A. and Villaume, N. and Umsted, Carson and Kourchians, Ara and Sternberg, D. and Trawny, Nikolas and Cheng, Y. and Geipel, E. and Montgomery, J.},
  booktitle = {Annual AAS Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference},
  address = {Breckenridge, Colorado},
  year = {2020},
  url = {https://dataverse.jpl.nasa.gov/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=hdl:2014/47468}
}

Gerdes, L., Wiese, T., Castilla Arquillo, R., Bielenberg, L., Azkarate, M., Leblond, H., Wilting, F., Ortega Cortés, J., Bernal, A., Palanco, S. and Pérez del Pulgar, C. (2024). BASEPROD: The Bardenas Semi-Desert Planetary Rover Dataset . Scientific Data. Source

BibTeX

@article{gerdes2024baseprod,
  title = {BASEPROD: The Bardenas Semi-Desert Planetary Rover Dataset},
  author = {Gerdes, Levin and Wiese, Tim and Castilla Arquillo, Raúl and Bielenberg, Lars and Azkarate, Martin and Leblond, Hugo and Wilting, Falk and Ortega Cortés, Javier and Bernal, Adrián and Palanco, Santiago and Pérez del Pulgar, Carlos},
  journal = {Scientific Data},
  volume = {11},
  pages = {1054},
  year = {2024},
  doi = {10.1038/s41597-024-03881-1},
  abstract = {Abstract Dataset acquisitions devised specifically for robotic planetary exploration are key for the advancement, evaluation, and validation of novel perception, localization, and navigation methods in representative environments. Originating in the Bardenas semi-desert in July 2023, the data presented in this Data Descriptor is primarily aimed at Martian exploration and contains relevant rover sensor data from approximately 1.7km of traverses, a high-resolution 3D map of the test area, laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy recordings of rock samples along the rover path, as well as local weather data. In addition to optical cameras and inertial sensors, the rover features a thermal camera and six force-torque sensors. This setup enables, for example, the study of future localization, mapping, and navigation techniques in unstructured terrains for improved Guidance, Navigation, and Control (GNC). The main features of this dataset are the combination of scientific and engineering instrument data, as well as the inclusion of the thermal camera and force-torque sensors in particular.}
}

(2022). MoonRanger project log: Localizing MoonRanger. labs.ri.cmu.edu/moonranger/localizing-moonranger

BibTeX

@misc{moonrangerprojectloglocalizing,
  title = {MoonRanger project log: Localizing MoonRanger},
  organization = {labs.ri.cmu.edu},
  year = {2022},
  url = {https://labs.ri.cmu.edu/moonranger/localizing-moonranger/}
}