Mars2020 Sample Acquisition and Caching Technologies
and Architectures
Kris Zacny
Honeybee Robotics
398 W Washington Blvd, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91103
510-207-4555
[email protected]
Phil Chu
Honeybee Robotics
398 W Washington Blvd, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91103
626-421-7902
[email protected]
Gale Paulsen
Honeybee Robotics
398 W Washington Blvd, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91103
626-421-7902
[email protected]
Jack Craft
Honeybee Robotics
398 W Washington Blvd, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91103
626-421-7902
[email protected]
Abstract—The goal of the Mars2020 mission is to acquire up to
28 rock/regolith samples and 3 blanks (or 34 rock/regolith
samples and 3 blanks), and cache these for the future sample
return mission. Honeybee Robotics investigated three
architectures; however only two showed promise. In the One
Bit One Core (OBOC) architecture, individual drill bits with
core samples are cached. This is the least complex architecture
and results in the total mass (cache+bits+rocks) of less than 2
kg and Orbital Sample diameter of 19 cm for the 31 cores case
and slightly more (<2.4 kg cache and 20 cm OS) for the 37
cores. In the One Breakoff System One Core (OBSOC)
architecture, the breakoff tube and the sleeve with cores are
removed from the drill bit and cached. The architecture also
uses one time use bit assemblies (plus spares). This architecture
results in the lowest cache mass and OS diameter but the trade
is complexity and sampling system mass. The OBSOC cache
mass is ~1.5 kg and ~1.86 kg for the 31/37 cases respectively,
while the OS diameter is 17 cm and 17.5 cm for the 31/37 cases
respectively. All architectures use SLOT bit that allows
inspection of rock samples along their lengths prior to caching.
The paper also introduces several key technologies developed
by Honeybee Robotics over the past 15 years, including the
SLOT caching bit, the Powder and Regolith Acquisition Bit,
Rock Abrasion and Brushing Bit (RABBit), PreView Bit,
Percussive and Core Breakoff technologies.
Kiel Davis
Honeybee Robotics
460 West 34th Street
New York, NY 10001
646-459-7809
[email protected]
1. INTRODUCTION
The Mars 2020 Science Definition Team (SDT) recently
provided science and exploration guidelines for the
Mars2020 mission [Mustard et al., 2013]. These guidelines,
among other things, suggest number of rock samples that
should be cached. In particular, SDT suggested two cases.
In the first case a total of 31 samples should be cached of
which 28 need to be rocks/regolith and 3 blanks. In that case
a provision has to be made for up to 25% of the previously
cached samples to be replaceable. In the second case, the
SDT recommended caching 37 samples, of which 34 are
rocks/regolith and 3 are blanks. In this latter case, however,
no requirement for replacing of previously acquired cores
exists. In this paper we investigate both cases.
The SDT called for samples of 8 cm3 in volume or
approximately 16 grams each assuming an average sample
density of 2 g/cc. We performed initial trade studies and
determined that the rock core aspect ratio of 1.3 cm
diameter and 6 cm long would result in relatively small OS
diameters. The core length of 6 cm satisfies another SDT
requirement which requires core samples to come from at
least 5 cm depth. Coincidently, stubbier bits are also
stronger which has is an important consideration for rover
slip conditions. Our stress calculations have shown that 6
cm bits will satisfy the Mars2020 rover slip requirements.
This bit length implies the shallower drilling depth and in
turn lower risk of getting stuck, and potentially lower
drilling energy and drilling time. In addition, the large
diameter (1.3 cm) means the rock cores will likely be less
fragmented, and volatiles (if present) will more likely be
preserved. The disadvantage of a larger diameter core is the
increased force required to break the core, however this can
be addressed by increasing the size of the breakoff actuator.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................1
2. UNIQUE TECHNOLOGIES ..................................2
3. MARS2020 ARCHITECTURES............................6
4. MASS AND DIMENSIONS OF RETURNABLE BITS7
5. RESULTS OF TRADE STUDIES FOR 31 CORES ..7
6. RESULTS OF TRADE STUDIES FOR 37 CORES ..8
7. CORE THERMAL ALTERATION.........................8
8. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................9
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................9
REFERENCES .......................................................10
BIOGRAPHY ........................................................11
All rock core drill bits are of the SLOT type which allows
observing the cores along their length prior to caching
[Zacny et al., 2013]. An additional Regolith and Powder
Acquisition Bit (PRABit) allows capture of regolith for
sample return.
978-1-4799-1622-1/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE
1
This paper presents the results of a trade study of three
architectures suitable for the Mars2020 mission. It builds on
a number of prior Mars Sample Return studies conducted
for NASA JPL and in many cases uses technologies (e.g.
drill bits and core breakoff mechanism) that have been
extensively verified through testing in Mars chambers [BarCohen and Zacny, 2009; Zacny et al., 2013; 2012; 2011a;
2011b; 2011c].
example pinch cores at the root, this particular breakoff
approach acts along the entire length of the core and hence it
is robust to broken or highly porous samples. An added
advantage of this approach is that the core rests on a step
and does not fall out (see Detail 1 in Figure 1).
This approach also results in a very narrow kerf (annular
groove cut by the cutters), which enables low Weight on Bit
(WOB), drilling power, time, and energy.
2. UNIQUE TECHNOLOGIES
This approach has been implemented in eight surface core
drills since the late 1990s and succesfully verified in dozens
of rock types. In the most recent implementation, which
included 140 coring tests in 6 different rocks, this breakoff
approach successfully sheared and captured 132 rock
samples, including severely fractured cores. In only 8 cases
(6%) was a partial core retained rather than a full core
[Zacny et al., 2013]. No complete loss of cores was
observed. To improve capture rate to 100% the breakoff
tube eccentric dimenion would need to be slightly increased.
This section describes unique (and in some cases patented)
technologies that are key to the proposed Mars2020 sample
acqusition and caching architectures.
Nested Tubes Core Breakoff and Capture System
This patented, proven eccentric tube design offers a low
profile method for shearing and positively capturing cores
(no reliance on friction or gravity). In this appproach (see
Figure 1), the bit and the breakoff tube each have bores
which are slightly offset from center by the same distance.
The breakoff system requires an additional degree of
freedom – the rotation of the breakoff tube. This added
actuator and rotary motion has been incorporated in a
number of unique bit designs: SLOT bit, PreView bit, and
the Powder and Regolith Acqusition Bit (PRABit) as
described in the follow on sections.
SLOT Caching Bits with Visual Verification System
As shown in Figure 2 it is impossible to determine volume
or core quality by looking at the very end of the core. It
might be possible to estimate the core within the bit by
estimating how much core material and powder were left in
and around the hole. However, this is an inaccurate
approach since the cores may get pulverized, and powder
may flow down the rock or be blown away by wind.
Figure 1. Eccentric tubes core breakoff and retention
technology (patented).
Figure 2. Looking at the front of the bit it is impossible
to determine the core quality and volume.
During the drilling process, the two tubes are aligned such
that the through bore of the breakoff tube is aligned with the
drilling axis. To break off a core, the breakoff tube is rotated
relative to the bit, which gradually shifts the central axis of
the breakoff tube. This pushes the entire portion of the core
within the bit to one side, shearing it at the base of the
breakoff tube. Unlike other breakoff approaches that for
The SLOT bit is the recent innovation (closeable slot along
length of coring bit) that enables simple visual inspection of
entire core sample before caching (Figure 3). It is
instrumental in allowing various instruments not only to
2
analyze the core in situ but also to determine volume of the
core before it is cached.
The SLOT bit is based on Honeybee Robotics most recent
core bit designs and represents a 4th generation of rotarypercussive core bits for the Mars2020 mission (Figure 4).
Mk1-Mk4 bits underwent collectively over 600 coring tests
in various rock types and pressures (760 torr and 7 torr),
while deployed from four different rotary-percussive drills
(SASSI 1 and 2, RANCOR, and RoPeC). The Mk4 bit
incorporates optimum (proprietary) geometries that
successfully meet several often conflicting requirements.
For example, surviving rover slip calls for a stronger bit
with larger wall thickness, while low cache mass calls for
lighter bits and in turn low wall thickness
Powder and Regolith Acquisition Bit (PRABit)
The powder and regolith acquisition bit allows capture of
rock powder or regolith sample for earth return (Figure 5).
The bit is very similar to the SLOT bit, except the bit is full
faced (drilling an entire hole diameter) rather than coring
(cutting just a thin kerf and leaving the core behind). Two
prototype bits have been developed and successfully tested
in a range of rocks and regolith. Although the SDT does not
stipulate the requirement for rock powder acquisition, such a
requirement would be easy to meet if an instrument
requiring rock powder is part of the Mars2020 payload.
Such a bit could be integrated with two or more sieves (e.g.
1 mm and 150 micron) for acquiring or depositing powders
or regolith of target particle size. However, for sample
return of regolith, an entire sample would be captured.
The PRABit is at TRL 5.
Figure 3. The SLOT Bit has a dual function: allows
viewing of cores in situ and serves as a caching bit.
Figure 4. Comparison of Mk2, Mk3, and Mk4 bit design
in Kaolinite rock. Tests were conducted at 760 torr and
7 torr pressure. ROP=Rate of penetration; SE=Specific
Energy; WOB=Weight on Bit.
The SLOT bit has been prototyped and succesfully tested at
simulated Mars atmospheric pressure in Travertine rock and
is currently at TRL 5.
Figure 5. The Powder and Regolith Acquisition Bit
(PRABit) has been successfully tested in regolith and
rocks. From top to bottom: before regolith capture,
confirming acquisition of regolith, ready for caching.
3
PreView Bit
BigTooth Bit
The PreView bit (Figure 6) has been designed specifically to
help with in situ rock analysis by non- or semi-destructive
instruments such as Raman, IR, and LIBS. The PreView bit
is very similar to the SLOT bit except the window is much
larger allowing access to large fraction of the core. The
window is placed towards the top of the bit while the auger
is placed towards the bottom of the bit. The PreView bit has
also been tested and verified in various rock types and
reached TRL 5.
The SDT report and the Mars2020 Announcement of
Opportunity both mention the Mars2020 sampling system’s
ability to drop a core on an observation tray. To achieve
this, Honeybee Robotics has developed a BigTooth bit.
The BigTooth bit cuts a core diameter slightly smaller than
the imaginary hole inscribed by the inner surfaces of the bits
as shown in Figure 7 [Zacny et al., 2013]. Since this
approach results in extra clearance between the core and the
inside of the bit, the core could be much more easily ejected
along the gravity vector. A few hammer blows might also be
used to help the core fall out. This technology has been
breadboarded and succesfuly tested and reached TRL 4/5.
Figure 7. The BigTooth concept allows easy ejection of
unneeded cores and hence allows reuse of the same bit.
Top: Principle of the BigTooth design. Bottom: Proof of
concept.
Long-Life Mechanical Percussor
Inspired by Apollo lunar drills, the spiral cam mechanical
percussing mechanism has been tailored for and
demonstrated to satisfy M2020 rock coring requirements.
The approach relies on a cam compressing a follower
against a spring. Every 270°, the spring accelerate the
Figure 6. The PreView bit allows capture and in-situ
analysis of rock cores. From top to bottom: before
drilling (window open), after core capture (window
closed), ready for analysis (window open).
4
follower towards the bit. Once the follower strikes the bit,
the cam picks it up again to compress against the spring (see
Figure 8).
as Rock Abrasion Tool can be used. In the second approach,
a grinding tool that is actuated by the Mars2020 drill could
also be a viable option (Figure 9 and Figure 10).
Honeybee Robotics developed a Surface Removal Tool for
the 2011 MSL mission. That tool reached PDR before it was
descoped in July of 2007. However, the bit development
showed great promise of meeting 6x the RAT life which is
slightly greater than the Mars2020 life requirement. A
dedicated RAT or SRT-like tool is a recommended
approach unless there is no space on the robot’s arm turret.
The Rock Abrasion and Brushing Bit (RABBit) developed
by Honeybee Robotics and successfully demonstrated in
various rocks has been actuated by a RoPeC rotarypercussive drill and hence could meet the requirement for
the drill deployable grinder.
The RAT tool is at TRL 9, the SRT is at TRL 5/6 and the
RABBit is at TRL 5.
The advantage of this approach is that it is mechanically
simple, and both the frequency and energy can be adjusted
via conventional actuators. The frequency is adjusted by
changing the speed of the cam while the energy is adjusted
by preloading the spring. This particular approach has been
succesfully incorporated in eight of Honeybee Robotics
percussive drills as well as hammer digging systems [Chu et
al., 2010; Craft et al., 2009; Zacny et al., 2009].
The Mars2020 prototype drill, SASSI, successfully operated
for over 2 milion cycles in Mars chamber; this represents
over 19 hours of operation. Assuming the Mars2020 drill
will be used approximately 40 times, and every core
acqusition task will take 15 minutes (based on the recent
MSL Curiosity drill perfomance on Mars), the required life
of the Mars2020 percussive system would be 10 hours or
approxmiately 50% of what has already been demonstrated
by the SASSI drill.
The percussive system is at TRL 5/6.
Figure 9. Rock Abrasion Tools options for the Mars2020
missions.
Figure 8. Cam-follower percussive system has been
integrated in eight Honeybee Robotics percussive drills.
Grinding and Brushing of Rocks
In general, there are two approaches for addressing SDT
requirements for grinding of rock surfaces. The SDT calls
for a maximum of 66 grinds (two for each of the 33 cached
rock samples; remaining 4 slots are for blanks and regolith
sample). In the first approach, a dedicated grinding tool such
Figure 10. Rock Abrasion and Brushing Bit (RABBit)
grinding into Travertine.
5
main difference is that after the core sample is placed in the
cache, the bit shank is detached (Figure 12). This reduces
the mass of returnable bits and height of the cache. The
main advantage is lower operational complexity (risk) due
to minimal manipulation of core sample or sample tube and
lower returnable mass since a heavy part of the bit (the
shank) is left behind. However, its disadvantage is
complexity of detaching the shank from the rest of the bit.
3. MARS2020 ARCHITECTURES
Here we present three architectures and report on the results
of the trade studies. Each of the three architectures
considered has a number of common technologies as
described in previous paragraphs. In all three architectures a
drill bit or drill bit assembly is used only once. This
substantially reduces robotic complexity related to core
transfer steps and re-using of the same bit. Also the bit life
is greatly reduced, and cross contamination is minimized or
eliminated (new bit each time).
It should be noted that another architecture has been focused
on reducing cache mass by incorporating replaceable tubes
[Backes et al., 2013]. In that architecture, cores are captured
in individual tubes, while bits are re-used. The architecture
results in the lowest cache mass at an expense of sampling
complexity.
The SDT recommended either hermetic sealing of
individual samples for the Base Mars2020 mission or a dust
seal for the Threshold mission. During the trade studies we
assumed dust seals for all architectures.
Figure 12. One Bit One Core w/o Shank (OBOCWOS)
Architecture.
One Bit One Core (OBOC) Architecture
One Breakoff System One Core (OBSOC) Architecture
In the One Bit One Core architecture, a core is acquired
using a low mass drill bit with integral break-off system.
Following visual verification of sample enabled by the
SLOT bit technology, the entire bit with core sample is
placed directly into cache (Figure 11). To collect and store
31 or 37 samples, the mission must be equipped with at least
31 or 37 coring bits (plus spares in the event some are
damaged due to extremely rare rover slip events). The bits
are envisioned to be light enough to make the returnable
mass fit the launch capacity of the Mars Ascent vehicle
(MAV).
The primary advantage of this approach is lower operational
complexity (risk) due to minimal manipulation of core
sample or sample tube. Its primary disadvantage is higher
returned mass and volume.
In the One Breakoff System One Core (OBSOC)
architecture, a core is acquired using a low mass drill bit
with integral break-off system just like in the previous two
architectures. However, in this architecture, following visual
verification of sample the bit’s cutting teeth, flute sleeve and
shank (i.e. an auger bit) are discarded and the core sample,
positively captured within the break-off tube, is stored in a
cache (Figure 13). Hence only the breakoff tube and sleeve
are retuned together with the core. To collect and store 31 or
37 samples, the mission must be equipped with at least 31 or
37 bit assemblies (removable break-off systems are preinstalled in bits).
The main advantage of this approach is that only the
minimum elements necessary to maintain positive control of
core sample are retuned. This yields lowest returned mass
and volume.
The major disadvantage is added system complexity and
greater landed mass since each bit assembly is larger to
account for additional sleeve and more complex bit shank.
Figure 11. One Bit One Core (OBOC) Architecture.
One Bit One Core w/o Shank (OBOCWOS) Architecture
The One Bit One Core w/o Shank (OBOCWOS)
architecture is very similar to the OBOC architecture. The
Figure 13. One Breakoff System One Core (OBSOC)
Architecture.
6
4. MASS AND DIMENSIONS OF RETURNABLE BITS
5. RESULTS OF TRADE STUDIES FOR 31 CORES
Figure 14 and Figure 15 show mass and dimensions of
returnable bits or breakoff assemblies. For all three
architectures, we assumed that all drill bit assemblies will be
made of Aluminum (density 2.7 g/cc) and the cache will be
made of AlBeMet (density of 2.07 g/cc).
Figure 16 and Figure 17 show results of the trade studies for
the three architectures.
Figure 16. Returned mass for the case of 31 cores for
each of the 3 architectures.
Mass is saved by moving from OBOC to more complex
architectures: OBOCWOS is 6.9 grams and OBSOC is 10.7
grams. This represents approximately 20% and 30% mass
savings for OBOCWOS and OBSOC respectively.
The bit and the breakoff assembly dimension for the 13 mm
diameter and 6 cm long core are: 22 mm in diameter and
92.3 mm long for the OBOC, 27 mm in diameter and 78
mm long for the OBOCWOS, and 17.8 mm diameter and
84.2 mm long for the OBSOC. The reason for diameter
increase in the case of OBOCWOS was driven by larger
detachable shank.
Comparing OBOC and OBOCWOS it can be seen that the
OBOC total sample cache (including bits and rocks) is ~140
grams heavier but the OS is 2 cm smaller. The reason the
OBOCWOS architecture has larger OS diameter is that bit
shanks (which drives the cache and in turn OS diameter) are
much larger in order to fit the shank detachment
mechanism. The 140 gram mass savings also comes at the
price of the bit mass (bits have larger and heavier shanks).
In addition, other disadvantages include the bit station’s
larger diameter to accommodate large diameter bits,
increased bit complexity since it incorporates a detachable
shank, and the drill needs to be able to actuate the shank and
in turn it will be more complex, and from an operations
standpoint, another step is required to detach the shank from
the bit and eject it onto the ground.
It is therefore recommended that the additional 140 gram
savings is too low to merit the OBOCWOS architecture.
Figure 15. Dimensions of returnable bit (OBOC and
OBOCWOS architectures) or breakoff assembly
(OBSOC architecture).
Figure 17. Diameter and Height of the Cache and
Diameter of a spherical Orbital Sample (OS) for three
architectures under consideration.
Figure 14. Mass of returnable bit (OBOC and
OBOCWOS architectures) or breakoff assembly
(OBSOC architecture).
Comparing OBOC and OBSOC it can be seen that the
OBOC total sample cache (including bits and rocks) is ~400
7
grams heavier and also the OS is 2 cm larger. However, this
mass and volume savings comes at a price as well. The
OBSOC bit size and mass is greater since bits need to
accommodate additional sleeve and larger shank, the bit
station is also larger and heavier to accommodate larger bits
(the architecture also has one time use bits), the bit
complexity is greater since breakoff tube and sleeve need to
be integrated inside, the drill has to be more complex to deal
with the additional steps of removing breakoff tube/sleeve
and inserting this assembly into cache, the bit staging area is
required for temporarily keeping the bit while the drill
removes the breakoff tube/sleeve assembly for caching, and
from the operation stand point additional steps are required
for caching.
In addition, the OBSOC cache will more likely grow in
diameter if lead-ins are needed for guiding the sample into
the cache. Such lead-ins might not be necessary for the
OBOC architecture since cutter shapes already include a
chamfer which could act as lead-in.
We believe the potential mass and OS savings warrants the
OBSOC architecture viable.
Figure 19. Dimension of the cache and diameter of the
spherical OS for the OBOC and OBSOC architecture
for 31 and 37 cached samples.
7. CORE THERMAL ALTERATION
If rock has volatiles that need to be captured or minerals that
are sensitive to thermal alteration, the process of coring
would have to be conducted very carefully. As reported by
Zacny et al. [2009] and Szwarc et al., [2012], the core
temperature can reach in excess of 50 °C during the process
of drilling. During the rotary-drilling tests Zacny et al.,
[2009] found that there is a linear relationship between T
of the core measured by a thermocouple embedded inside
the core and the drilling Specific Energy (see Figure 20).
The difference in behavior at Mars pressure and 760 torr
was minimal. They also found that approximately 5% of
heat generated during the drilling process flows into the
core. The steady state equation for core T has also been
developed which based on empirical data uses 5% of heat
generated during the drilling process for heating up the core.
Duty cycling the drill has also been demonstrated as a
potential method to maintain core T below a required
temperature (Figure 21). The process relies on temporarily
stopping drilling to let the heat dissipate into the adjacent
rock and up the bit into the atmosphere. A 50/50 duty cycle
(drilling/stopping) could for example be used to keep the
core T below approximately 30 °C.
Just recently, Szwarc [2013] developed a LabView-based
thermal model for coring and drilling operations for both
rotary and rotary-percussive drilling approaches. The model
was verified using data acquired from a number of coring
and drilling tests in various rock types such as Kaolinite and
Basalt and also in ice at 760 torr and 7 torr pressure. He
developed a more comprehensive equation for linking core
deltaT to drilling parameters and confirmed the feasibility of
using duty cycling as an approach for maintaining core
temperature below certain value for percussive drilling.
6. RESULTS OF TRADE STUDIES FOR 37 CORES
Figure 18 and Figure 19 show the trade study comparing
OBOC and OBSOC architecture for 31 and 37 cached
samples. As mentioned in previous paragraph, the
OBOCWOS architecture was found not to merit further
investigation.
The total returnable mass increases for both architectures by
almost 400 grams when number of cacheable samples
increase from 31 to 37. However, the corresponding
increase in spherical OS diameter is relatively small. In
particular the OS diameter for OBOC increases from 19 to
20 cm for 31 and 37 samples, respectively. For the OBSOC
architecture the OS diameter increase is even lower: the OS
increases from 17 cm to 17.5 cm for 31 and 27 samples,
respectively.
Figure 18. The mass of the OBOC and OBSOC
architecture for 31 and 37 cached samples.
8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work presented in this paper has been funded by the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
through various funding programs as well as Honeybee
Robotics Internal Research and Development program.
Figure 20. Core temperature increase as a function of
Specific Energy of drilling. LS is a 45 MPa Indiana
Limestone. B is a 120 MPa Saddleback Basalt. Tests
were conducted at earth atmospheric pressure (~760
torr) and Mars pressure (4 torr).
Tcore 
f * Power
c *  * Acore * ROP
f  fraction of energy flowing to the core; ~ 5%
c  specific heat capacity of rock
  rock density
ROP  Rate of Penetratio n
Figure 21. Drilling duty cycle could be used for keeping
the core temperature below certain value.
8. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a number of technologies and
architectures suitable for sample acquisition and caching as
well as rock preparation for the Mars2020 mission.
Most of the technologies are at TRL 5 and have been
validated in Mars chamber testing, in many cases exceeding
the mission life requirements.
We believe that at least two architectures: One Bit One Core
(OBOC) and One Breakoff System One Core (OBSOC) are
viable options for the Mars2020 caching requirements.
These architectures meet science requirements of caching 31
or 37 samples (including blanks) and have low enough
return mass and volume to fit the launch capabilities of the
Mars Ascent Vehicle.
9
Kris Zacny, Jack Wilson, Phil Chu, and Jack Craft, (2011b)
Prototype Rotary Percussive Drill for the Mars Sample
Return Mission, Paper #1125, IEEE Aerospace
conference, 5-12 March 2011, Big Sky, Montana.
REFERENCES
Bar-Cohen Y., and K. Zacny [editors], Drilling in Extreme
Environments Penetration and Sampling on Earth and
Other Planets, John Wiley & Sons, 2009
Zacny, K., P. Chu, J. Wilson, K. Davis, and J. Craft, (2011c),
Honeybee Approach to the Sample Acquisition and
Caching Architecture for the 2018 Mars Sample Return
Mission, Paper #1573, IEEE Aerospace conference, 5-12
March 2011, Big Sky, Montana.
Backes, P., P. Younse, A. Ganino, (2013), A Minimum Scale
Architecture for Rover-Based Sample Acquisition and
Caching,
Aerospace
Conference,
2013
IEEE,
10.1109/AERO.2013.6497399
Chu, P., J. Wilson, K Zacny, Arm-Deployed RotaryPercussive Coring Drill, eNTR: 1280506319
Zacny, K., R. Mueller, G. Galloway, J. Craft, G. Mungas, M.
Hedlund, and P. Fink, (2009), Novel Approaches to
Drilling and Excavation on the Moon, AIAA-2009-6431,
AIAA Space 2009 Conference and Exposition, September
14-17, 2009, Pasadena, CA
Craft, J., J. Wilson, P. Chu, K. Zacny, and K. Davis, (2009),
Percussive digging systems for robotic exploration and
excavation of planetary and lunar regolith, IEEE
Aerospace conference, 7-14 March 2009, Big Sky,
Montana.
Zacny, K., Y. Bar-Cohen, M. Brennan, G. Briggs, G. Cooper,
K. Davis, B. Dolgin, D. Glaser, B. Glass, S. Gorevan, J.
Guerrero, C. McKay, G. Paulsen, S. Stanley, and C.
Stoker, Drilling Systems for Extraterrestrial Subsurface
Exploration, Astrobiology Journal, Volume 8, Number 3,
2008, DOI: 10.1089/ast.2007.0179
Mustard, J.F., M. Adler, A. Allwood, D.S. Bass, D.W. Beaty,
J.F. Bell III, W.B. Brinckerhoff, M. Carr, D.J. Des
Marais, B. Drake, K.S. Edgett, J. Eigenbrode, L.T. ElkinsTanton, J.A. Grant, S. M. Milkovich, D. Ming, C. Moore,
S. Murchie, T.C. Onstott, S.W. Ruff, M.A. Sephton, A.
Steele, A. Treiman (2013): Report of the Mars 2020
Science Definition Team, 154 pp., posted July, 2013, by
the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG)
http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/MEP/Mars_2020_SDT_
Report_Final.pdf.
Szwarc, T., A. Aggarwal, S. Hubbard, B. Cantwell, K. Zacny,
A Thermal Model for Analysis and Control of Drilling in
Icy Formations on Mars, Planetary and Space Science,
Volume 73, Issue 1, December 2012, Pages 214–220
Szwarc, T., (2013), Thermal Modeling of Coring and Drilling
Operations for Solar System Exploration Applications,
PhD Dissertation, Stanford.
Zacny K., et al., (2013), Sample Acquisition and Caching
Architecture for the Mars Sample Return Mission, 2013
IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana, March
2-9, 2013.
Zacny, K., G., Paulsen, P. Chu, A. Avanesyan, J. Craft, T.
Szwarc, (2012), Mars Drill for the Mars Sample Return
Mission with a Brushing and Abrading Bit, Regolith and
Powder Bit, Core PreView Bit and a Coring Bit, IEEE
Aerospace conference, 4-10 March 2012, Big Sky,
Montana.
Zacny K., G. Paulsen, A. Avanesyan, B. Mellerowicz, T.
Makai, P. Chu, J. Craft, T. Szwarc, (2011a), Development
of the Brushing, Abrading, Regolith, Core PreView and
the Coring Bits for the Mars Sample Return Mission,
AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition, Long
Beach, September 26-29, 2011
10
Gale L. Paulsen is a Systems
Engineer
at
Honeybee
Robotics. Prior to joining
Honeybee in 2005, he worked
with NASA’s Jet Propulsion
Laboratory as a graduate
student for two years to
develop a multi robot cliff
climbing system. At Honeybee,
he has performed field tests of robotic drilling systems in
the Canadian High Arctic and Antarctic. Paulsen has
also assisted in the development of detailed mechanical,
electrical, and software designs and analyses for multiple
projects such as Sample Manipulation System for the
2011 Mars Science Lab, Icy Soil Acquisition Device on
the 2007 Mars Phoenix Lander, Rock Abrasion Tool on
the Mars Exploration Rovers. He also lead mechanical,
electrical, and software designs for a high precision rock
grinding instrument for producing thin sections and an
automated sample acquisition and analysis system for the
mining industry. Gale holds a B.S and M.S. in
Mechanical Engineering from the University of Nebraska.
BIOGRAPHY
Dr. Kris Zacny is Vice President
and Director of Exploration
Technology Group at Honeybee
Robotics. His interests include
robotic
terrestrial
and
extraterrestrial
drilling,
excavation, sample handling and
processing,
and
geotechnical
systems. In his previous capacity as
an engineer in South African mines, Dr. Zacny managed
numerous mining projects and production divisions. Dr.
Zacny received his PhD from UC Berkeley in Mars
drilling and ME in Petroleum Engineering. He
participated in several Arctic and the Antarctic drilling
expeditions. Dr. Zacny has over 100 publications,
including an edited book titled “Drilling in Extreme
Environments: Penetration and Sampling on Earth and
Other Planets”.
Kiel Davis is President of Honeybee
Robotics. Mr. Davis has over 17
years experience in developing
electromechanical systems from
early concept through to flight. His
responsibilities include project
management, company resource
management, business development,
mechanical and electrical design,
control systems design, software development, systems
implementation and testing of advanced automated and
complex engineering systems. His work on space
missions, including the Mars Exploration Rovers’ Rock
Abrasion Tool, the Mars Phoenix Lander’s Icy Sample
Acquisition Device, and the Mars Science Laboratory’s
Surface Removal Tool provide him with an in-depth
understanding of the challenges and difficulties inherent
in designing mechanisms for long life in harsh
environments. He holds a B.S. in Mechanical
Engineering from University of Rochester and an M.S. in
Systems Engineering from Polytechnic University.
Jack Craft is a Project Manager at
Honeybee Robotics. In that role, he
has worked to ensure the success of
Honeybee’s efforts to develop
drilling and sampling technologies.
Mr. Craft is responsible for project
planning and control of our several
NASA funded R&D efforts geared
towards
planetary
subsurface
access and sampling. Mr. Craft
holds a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the Cooper
Union and an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from
Rutgers University.
Philip Chu is a Systems Engineer
at Honeybee Robotics. Mr. Chu has
served as lead engineer on
numerous
mechanical
and
electromechanical
systems,
including
pneumatic
and
percussive drilling systems, robotic
manipulators,
and
planetary
sample acquisition systems. Mr.
Chu’s experience in spaceflight systems for planetary
exploration, includes Flight Operations for NASA’s Mars
Exploration Rovers’ Rock Abrasion Tools (RAT) and the
design, integration, and testing of NASA’s Phoenix
Lander Icy Soil Acquisition Device (ISAD). Mr. Chu has
a BS and an MS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell
University.
11
12