EVA Crew: Mike Turner & Mark Hernquist
Support Crew: Randy Moore & Stacy Sklar
HabCom: Amber Church & Kari Cheek

EVA Goals:

1. To obtain and subsequently analyze aerial data in order to develop a methodology for studying geological features from aerial images.
2. Determine optimal flight parameters which lead to images that are optimal for geological analysis.
3. Begin dataset of environmental parameters that affect in-flight safety and quality of data.
4. Make an initial assessment of applicability of aerial surveillance geological analysis.

EVA Description: Today was the first EVA in which we took aerial data. A few hours prior, the ARV was fully repaired & ready again for flight. The local weather report showed wind speeds reaching no more than 5 mph, it was an optimal day for flying.

Prior to the EVA prep, Stacy was trained on the imaging equipment. Fortunately the systems set up by the University of Illinois engineering team are fairly straightforward, and Stacy became familiar with the procedure in 10 minutes.

It is becoming standard on our flight EVA's that 4-5 people are necessary.

These positions are as follows:

• ARV Pilot (unsuited for safety reasons)
• 1-2 Geologist(s) to analyze the aerial data & direct the flight.
• 2 Fully suited crew members for general field support including flight spotting and scaling data

Since we only have 2 working ATVs it was not possible to carry the ARV and the necessary crew members out to the field. We used Stacy's truck to approximate in sim condition of using a pressurized rover called PEV Meta.

We decided to visit a contact between the Morrison and Dakota Formations about 1 km from the hab. Once there we performed two flights. The flying went pretty much perfectly. Randy made several very nice passes over the surfaces that Stacy wanted us to examine. Stacy had some trouble analyzing the video during the flight

due to excessive glare on the screen. We tried to alleviate this by putting a sunguard on the windshield of the "rover" but still to no avail. After we arrived back to the hab it was the consensus that the video would have been better if Stacy could have clearly seen the video. We are going to try and remedy this in future flight EVA's.

Both flights ended in harsh landings. The ground roll for our plane seems to be about 20m and because of the rough features in the desert, such an accident is a high probability. On the second landing the plane was damaged again. The engine mount was broken, and the wall that carries the mount buckled. Luckily the damage was repairable. But we are beginning to estimate that the plane will not be able to take another rough landing.

The video taken will be analyzed tonight by Amber & Randy to try and determine what sort of geological information can be obtained from the video, and what sort of conclusions might be made from this.

Data Collected: Two aerial videos of the contact Morrison and Dakota Formation, both approximately 20 minutes in length.

Lessons Learned:

• Good landings are an essential part of vehicle longevity this part of the process should be planned out thoroughly. Acceptable landing spots should be located prior to takeoff.
• The scientist analyzing live aerial video should be able to see the video screen clearly. This way they are able to fully judge what they are looking at and tell the pilot to adjust accordingly.