Introduction:

A small Mars crew will undoubtedly collaborate with groups of scientists back on Earth. How this collaboration will happen is still largely undefined. Last year we tested our first design and implementation of a computer supported Mars- and Earth-based science work system. We started by exploring basic questions like how a Mars crew can communicate their daily EVA plans and captured science data during and after an EVA back to their colleagues on Earth. By starting there we immediately asked ourselves what the role of an Earth-based science team is. Can the remote science team (RST) participate in the planning of daily EVAs on Mars? Will the RST be able to get the science data in time to make useful suggestions to the crew? Will the crew be able to absorb the RST suggestions in a timely manner to develop a daily EVA plan? How will the RST EVA plan compare with the crew plan? To look at these questions, we defined a fairly simple science work process and used three pre-existing software tools that had been used in other domains. We integrated these software tools with our Mobile Agents Architecture (MAA), enabling the automatic flow of data between Mars and Earth. With this integration we showed how easy it was to add new software tools to the Mobile Agents Architecture, allowing previously developed software tools and systems to interact with software systems already in the architecture without having to develop dedicated software interfaces between them. This important feature of the MAA allowed us to integrate those systems that were developed separately to support specific functions in the work process. We were also successful in answering a number of our Crew//RST collaboration questions. We confirmed that the RST can participate in the planning of daily EVAs on Mars and that it was possible to get the science data to Earth in enough time to assist in the development of EVAs and the analysis of the science data. However, we learned that it is very difficult to sustain a daily Crew/RST EVA planning cycle. Due to the different time zones between both the crew and the RST, as well as the different time zones of the RST members on Earth, the daily cycle was not sustainable more than a couple of days. The crew would work till early in the morning on Mars to downlink their next day EVA plan, while some members of the RST had to wake up at two o’clock in the morning for the RST planning telecon meeting, so that the RST could uplink their plan review back to the crew before eight o’clock the next morning on Mars. We also learned that it was very hard, without any pre-planning on the part of the crew and the various RST scientists, to come up with a single EVA plan that everyone could agree on in the short turnaround time between EVAs.

Most currently operating remote science teams are composed of scientists directing robotic craft that are operating in a remote location. Communication is direct and simple. The RST tells the robot what to do; the robot does it, and sends the data back to the RST for analysis. Communication between a RST and astronauts is much more challenging. One of the lessons we have learned over the past two years is that while communication and collaboration between Earth and Mars is paramount to the success of remote science, our previous assumption that we needed to first perfect a method of communication in order to effectively collaborate may have been wrong. In six attempts at collaboration using this approach, only one was truly successful in terms of communication between the Mars crew and the Earth scientists. The major difference between this successful attempt and the others was that both the remote scientists and the Mars crew had been active in the planning of the experiments that were to be performed during the rotation. Based on this experience, we decided to focus this season on the idea of collaboration between the scientists prior to the astronauts going into the field. In other words, we wanted to develop a collaborative backbone before we went into the field, to see if this would more naturally lead to better communication between the two teams once in the field. We believe that a concerted effort in defining the science before the field test will be effective in facilitating a better working relationship between the astronauts and the RST. This is the major operational question we are looking at during this field test.

To this end, we developed two general investigative themes, based on interpretations of aerial images, which will guide the science being done during the field test. Under these two general themes, a series of more focused questions will be investigated.

Investigative Theme # 1— Regolith landform mapping: Our observation of contrasts in tone, textures, and patterns visible in the aerial images indicate that different regolith materials are present at Pooh's Corner. In particular, surface contrast of gray-scale indicates the presence of at least three different types of regolith materials. Ground investigations will determine whether there is a systematic relationship between landform type and regolith materials.

Investigative Theme #2—Follow the water: We observe that the landscape is fluvially eroded with low relief dendritic channels between the rises. We suspect that this fluvial activity formed the wide expanse that we observe at Pooh's Corner and that fluvial activity is still present. We predict that different regolith types will exhibit varying soil moisture content.

These investigative themes were developed by both the Mars crew and the Earth-based scientists involved in the field test and have been integrated into the Pooh’s Corner Scenario. It is our belief that this pre-planning will make collaboration between the teams easier.

We briefly describe the make-up of the RST and the crew/RST workflow process. We then describe how the three tools support the crew and the RST in doing their work.

The Remote Science Team:

This year, the Remote Science Team consists of a three lead scientists, each with their own science backroom of geology experts. Figure 1 shows a graphical depiction of the RST organization. The lead scientists are located in California, Arizona and Australia. The backrooms are located spatially in the same place as their respective leads. One backroom consists of a group of geology professors (California), another of professional field geologists (Australia) and the other of geology graduate students (Arizona). Each of the backrooms will evaluate the analyses created by the crew and lead scientists and access to the data will be limited to that which is provided by the lead scientists, who will have access to all data. The complete RST is lead by the RST Coordinator who oversees the work of all the RST scientists and manages the communication between the crew and the RST.

Figure 1. The Remote Science Team - Click for Detail

The RST needs to collaborate together to a) analyze the EVA science data send to them from Mars and b) create the crew's EVA plan for the upcoming EVA. This year we defined a work process in which the crew plans and executes their EVAs in a three-day EVA-cycle. After the first EVA day of the three-day cycle, the crew sends their analysis to the RST. The second day is a Crew/RST planning day, in which the RST reviews the crew’s analysis and creates an EVA plan for the next EVA. This EVA plan is uplinked to the crew in the afternoon of day two. The crew reviews this plan and sends back their comments after dinner on Mars. The next day (day three), the RST reviews this plan and makes sure that the final EVA plan for the day is uploaded at eight o’clock in the morning on day three on Mars. The crew wakes up and executes the EVA plan. The three-day cycle then starts over again. The Earth-based collaboration between the distributed RST is facilitated by collaboration tools. A human RST facilitator facilitates the Science Operation Working Group (SOWG) web-based teleconferences between the RST lead scientists. The workflow process is described next.

The Crew/RST Workflow Process:

The workflow process is divided into two parallel processes that are dependent on each other. Figure 2 shows a high-level workflow process model.

Figure 2. The Mobile Agents Project Crew/RST Workflow - Click for Detail

The process above the dotted line represents the steps for the crew on Mars, while the process below the line is representing that of the RST. The process starts on the left side of the diagram showing the crew performing their EVA. This represents a random EVA that has been planned the day before and was briefed by the crew the morning of the EVA (which is depicted on the right sight of the diagram). During the EVA science data captured by the EVA astronauts and/or the ERA robot is both communicated to the hab and back to Earth by the Brahms software agents. The data is stored in both ScienceOrganizer in the hab and on Earth, as well as in the Compendium database in the habitat. The RST lead scientists will receive e-mail from the Habitat e-mail agent with a URL reference to the stored science data in ScienceOrganizer. This way the individual RST scientists can follow the EVA as science data is communicated to and stored back on Earth, allowing them to start their individual analysis as soon as they can. After the EVA, the crew will analyze the collected science data (rock and soil samples, if applicable) back in the habitat. After this analysis, the crew will discuss the results of the day's EVA and plan the EVA for the next day. This meeting is facilitated using Compendium. The result of this is communicated to Earth. This allows the RST to view the crew’s EVA plan in the Compendium tool. The RST lead scientists will come together in a remotely facilitated meeting on the web. The meeting is facilitated using the Compendium tool displayed on every RST member's computer screen over the web. This is called the Science Operations Work Group meeting. The name is taken from a similar type meeting held during each Sol on the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission at JPL (http://origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/home/). During the SOWG meeting, the RST decides on the plan for the next day, by meeting together in a teleconference to review the plan made earlier by the crew on Mars. The meeting is captured in the Compendium. The result of the meeting is e-mailed back to the crew, before the crew wakes up the next morning. The next morning at 8:30am Mars time the crew debriefs the RST plan in Compendium, and decides on the final plan for the day's EVA.

Crew/RST Collaboration Support Tools:

For a description of the tools being used in our experiment go to the RST Communication System Report of 4/27/2004.