Development and Field-Testing of a Prototype Toolkit for

Astronaut Planetary Exploration Activities on Moon/Mars

Justin C. Brannan 1 and Heather N. Bradshaw

2

Space Systems Laboratory, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

A prototype of an on-site geological sample analysis toolkit was developed by students at

the University of Maryland and field-tested at the Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS) in

Hanksville, Utah. This portable toolkit is a collection of systems designed to aid astronauts

in field geology during planetary Extra-Vehicular Activities (EVAs) on the Moon or Mars.

Characteristics of the system include a self-standing, three-pronged staff with the capability

to grasp rocks within and dig through various terrain settings, as well as to use a microscope

and heads-up display for close examination of rock samples in the field. The heads-up

display incorporates augmented reality overlays of the rock sample, enabling the subject to

view the microscope-camera images inside his/her space suit. This tool has the potential to

greatly advance the effectiveness of an astronaut field geologist on the Moon or Mars,

enabling him/her to quickly analyze rock samples on-site. By identifying sites with more

valuable science, the overall efficiency of EVA time is enhanced. The tool also reduces the

astronaut's workload in the field by reducing the amount of bending and reaching required

during sample collection; these are both high mobility tasks, which are difficult to perform

in a pressurized suit. In order to evaluate the performance of this prototype, human factors

testing was conducted at the Mars Desert Research Station, a unique Mars-analog site.

Volunteer test subjects performed the following tasks with the tool: walking, digging out a

rock, picking up a rock, and standing the staff upright in the ground in order to demonstrate

a hands-free scenario, useful when simultaneous tasks need to be accomplished. The tasks

were repeated on three different terrains: flat ground, inclined slope, and declined slope.

The subjects were then asked to evaluate the ability of the tool to perform each of these tasks

as well as the relative workload required to complete each task; a modified Cooper-Harper

Chart was used to select the ratings. In addition to the field testing described above, bench-

top testing was performed inside the MDRS Habitat in order to assess the effectiveness of the

microscope and heads-up display. The comments from the test subjects were recorded

during both the field-testing and bench-top testing experiments, and they serve as a very

useful foundation for the development of a more refined version of the prototype geological

toolkit in possible future iterations.

1 Undergraduate Researcher, Department of Aerospace Engineering, 382 Technology Drive, University of

Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, Student Member. 2 Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Aerospace Engineering, 382 Technology Drive, University of

Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, Student Member.

49th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition4 - 7 January 2011, Orlando, Florida

AIAA 2011-834

Copyright © 2011 by Justin Brannan and Heather Bradshaw. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.

Nomenclature

EVA = Extra-Vehicular Activity

MDRS = Mars Desert Research Station

NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration

SSL = Space Systems Laboratory

UMD = University of Maryland

Figure 1. Astronaut using rake device to collect samples.

1

I. Introduction

UMAN exploration of space has been a driving goal of our nation's space program. In order to explore the

harsh environments of the Moon and Mars, astronauts will need equipment and tools that enable them to

perform the science exploration tasks required during missions. During the Apollo program, one of the frequent

tasks performed during extra-vehicular activities (EVAs) on the lunar surface was to collect samples of interesting

geological sites. To do this, they used an array of tools, tailored to the task at hand. These included: a scoop for

collecting soil, a raking device for collecting small rock samples, a long-handled scoop for digging trenches, a pair

of tongs for collecting mid-sized rocks, and a hammer for chipping off samples from large boulders.1

The raking

device is shown in Figure 1 above. In addition to collection devices, another field geology tool taken on Apollo

missions was the hand lens.2 The hand lens is often considered, by field geologists on earth, to be one of the most

essential tools used on an expedition.3

With it, field geologists are able to view a rock sample and quickly observe

many of its identifying characteristics, including: surface alteration, rounding due to transport abrasion, and mineral

content, as well as angularity and vesicularity within the rock.4 Interestingly, though the hand lens is a key player

in field geology conducted on Earth, the astronauts did not end up using it during their EVAs on the moon, even

though it was included in their portable toolkit on Apollo missions 12 and 14.2 An image of the hand lens is shown

in Figure 2 below. Perhaps there was not a need for on-site classification during those missions, or perhaps the hand

lens was difficult to use when looking through the suit helmet plate.

As a next-generation prototype for a tool used in astronaut field geology applications, it would be desirable to have a

tool that combines many of the above features into one unified toolkit, integrated in the form of a walking staff,

which would have the additional feature of providing stability when traversing steep slopes, such as side of a crater

or ridge to obtain a rock sample. Preliminary research into the development of a working prototype for such a

device has been conducted by researchers at the Space Systems Laboratory (SSL) of the University of Maryland

H

Figure 2. Hand lens included in toolkit during Apollo 12 and 14.5

(UMD), and field testing has been conducted at the Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS). In its current form, the

portable geological toolkit includes a digging tool to aid in uncovering partially buried rocks, as well as a grasping

mechanism for picking up rock samples, and a device that serves as a suited alternative to a hand lens. This last

feature consists of a handheld microscope-camera unit which sends its signal to a heads-up display inside the

helmet. The suited astronaut would then see augmented reality overlays inside the helmet, displaying images of the

rock as seen by the handheld microscope-camera. Ideally, this would enable the astronaut to obtain the information

one would have by using a hand lens, but without the potential difficulties one would encounter using a hand lens

with spaceuit gloves (ie, hold the hand lens and rock sample up to the curved window of the helmet faceplate using

bulky space suit gloves.)

II. Overview of Prototype Capabilities

This project is being developed in partnership with

the Space Systems Laboratory at the University of

Maryland. A prototype of an on-site geological

sample analysis toolkit was tested during the

mission. The toolkit is a collection of systems

designed to aid in field geology during planetary

EVAs. Capabilities of the system include a self-

standing, three pronged staff with digging and

grasping capabilities used in conjunction with a

microscope to identify features of a rock sample

and a heads-up display with augmented reality

overlays to view the microscope image inside the

suit. This tool has the potential to greatly advance

the effectiveness of an astronaut field geologist,

enable them to quickly analyze rock samples on-site, allow them to identify the sites with more valuable science,

and enhance the overall efficiency of EVA time, as well as reduce astronaut workload when performing sample

collection tasks. The crew used a modified Cooper-Harper Chart to conduct human factors testing on this prototype

system while in simulation. Subjects of this experiment performed the tasks of walking, digging out a rock, and

picking up a rock with the staff while on flat ground, an inclined slope and a declined slope. The subjects were then

asked to evaluate the ability of the tool to perform these tasks, along with the ability for the staff to stand alone on

the three terrains. Further, benchtop testing was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the heads-up display. This

part of the experiment was anticipated to have been conducted in the field, however a limited battery supply, a faulty

connection between the microscope and the heads-up display and the physical size of the helmet supplied by the

Mars Desert Research Station prevented such integrated use of the tool. Comments from the subjects will provide a

foundation for a more intricate version of the Geologic Evaluation Tool.

III. Development of the Prototype

The production of the Geological Toolkit began with optimizing the physical dimensions of the grasper, using

boundary conditions based upon the rock size to be picked up. Soon, the focus began to divert to more general ideas

about incorporating several other features including microscope and heads-up display capabilities. A capability to

drill into rock samples was then tested, as a drill-like mechanism could easily be attached to the top of the staff. A

preliminary test was conducted with a variety of rocks, however it seemed that the drill was unable to produce

significant holes without considerable effort. With greater thought, if a drill was indeed added to the top portion of

the staff than a large moment would be required to apply sufficient pressure on the samples to create a hole. This

was also attempted with little success, as it became unstable when the drill slipped off of the face of the rocks that

were not large and flat. At this point, there was a need to clarify the purpose of the research, and the unsuccessful

testing led to the dismissal of the drilling capability. Machining of the optimized prong design now began, with

aluminum, chosen due to its light weight and high strength. Further progress was also made about the specifics of

the scientific experiment to be performed in the field. However, with little progress being made with the production

of the optimized prong assembly, the search for a suitable pre-made staff was conducted, to focus more on the

experiment itself than on the production of the staff. A third, pointed iron prong was added to introduce a digging

capability. Finally, a step-by-step procedure of testing was created, and the microscope and heads-up display setup

was tested. The final product was produced and tested in conjunction with the heads-up display, and a coherent

chart for the test subjects to fill out was designed.

Figure 3. Suiting up for

prototype field testing.

IV. Prototype Field Testing

After the development of the prototype, field testing was conducted at the Mars Desert Research Station, one of the

most accurate Mars analog sites in the world, in order to evaluate the performance of the tool. This was performed

by suiting up in analog spacesuits and systematicallly testing the following characteristics: the ability of the tool to

assist an astronaut’s capability to walk, to stand on its own without a significant effort, to dig up a rock, and to pick

up a rock. In addition to field testing, an evaluation was conducted inside the laboratory environment of the Mars

Desert Research Station in order to assess the useability of the augmented reality display.

A. Experimental Setup and Test Procedure

To setup the experiment, care must first be taken to connect the electronic

devices involved, including a laptop and two Sony video devices that

connected the laptop to the heads up display and provided power to the

augmented reality setup. These devices were stored in a small backpack that fit

on top of the analog spacesuit provided by MDRS, as shown in Figure 3. The

heads-up display was mounted onto a soft wrestling helmet and the microscope

was kept secure by a Velcro arm strap compartment, for easy access while in

the field. Upon turning the instruments on, a preliminary check was performed

to ensure that the subject could properly see out of the display. The participant

of the study then exited the Habitat for a short depressurization simulation

before entering the analog Martian environment.

The subjects began by walking on flat terrain with the assistance of the

Geological Toolkit. Using the Cooper-Harper Chart, described below, they

each evaluated the helpfulness of the staff in walking and commented on any

improvements that could be made. The next task was standing the staff into the

ground. This was also performed on flat ground and allows astronauts to

venture from the Toolkit in difficult environments if necessary, without the

burden of carrying the extra weight, and thus expending extra amounts of

unnecessary work. The staff is equipped with a pointed, angled third prong

which is able to penetrate harsh terrain and independently hold the Toolkit

steady. One of the main capabilities of the Geological Toolkit was the ability to dig up and grasp rock samples. To

assess these objectives, the subjects each qualitatively evaluated the ability of the staff to dig out and grasp a rock

and the work it takes to complete these tasks, picking up the rocks to a specified height. Three to five rocks of

varying sizes, shapes and textures were used to encompass the maximum variety of situations encountered. Further

comments were recorded as to how easy it is to complete each of the tasks and how the heads-up display feels,

according to weight, awkwardness and ability to see during each of the tasks detailed above. For the duration of the

in-situ testing, the heads-up display was turned off, however was still mounted in order to simulate the potential

burden of its weight.

B. Cooper-Harper Evaluation Tool

In order to evaluate the performance of the Geological Toolkit, a modified Cooper-Harper chart was developed

which allowed the test subjects to select a workload rating for the tool which corresponded with each task they

performed with it. The Cooper-Harper chart was originally developed for test pilots, in order to provide a more

structured approach in collecting their feedback when assessing airplane performance and pilot workloads. The chart

has been used in many other applications since, and is a performance evaluation method commonly used in human

factors engineering. The chart provides a systematic approach to assessing the qualitative workload experienced by

the user. On the Cooper-Harper charts used by NASA when evaluating new tools for astronaut use, they typically

accept tools with an ease-of-use rating from 1 to 3 on the ten-point scale, whereas tools scoring a 4 or greater

(indicating a higher workload is required to accomplish the task) are not accepted for use without further

improvement. A common practice in human factors testing is to develop a “modified” Cooper-Harper chart that is

specific to the tool being tested. The modified Cooper-Harper chart developed by the student researchers for this set

of tests is shown in Figure 4 below. The test subjects were shown this chart after completing each task, and were

asked to evaluate the workload required in order to accomplish the task with the given tool.

Figure 6. Walking up an inclined plane with suit fully donned.

Figure 5. Walking performance ratings.

C. Methodology for Heads-Up Display Testing

Out of field testing was also conducted, where the subject would don the microscope and heads-up display, on top of

the suit supplied by the Mars Society. The subject at first observed three different rocks without using the

microscope and filled out a pre-made chart of characteristics describing each rock. This chart had a full array of

options to classify the rock, including color, texture, transparency, grain size, luster, and hardness. There was an

additional option where the subject could circle the type of rock they thought the sample could be classified as. At

this time, the microscope and heads-up display was used to observe these same rocks, to fill out an identical chart

about each sample. Since the subjects had seen the rocks previously, the order of which the rocks were presented

was shifted in order to prevent bias in our results from the subject remembering what was observed without the

assistance of the microscope. It is apparent that this bias was not completely overcome for this procedure, however

the time between a subject’s trials with verses without the microscope was maximized by the limitation that there

was only one heads-up display to try on at a time. Crewmembers would be encouraged to fill out the non-

microscope chart and then perform some other duty pertaining to the Habitat before returning to complete the chart

using the microscope set up. Still, comments were gathered comparing the answers of either chart to determine the

overall effectiveness of this portion of the Toolkit. A second objective was to evaluate how easy it is to see the rock

in the heads-up display as well as how easy it is for the subject to see past the translucent heads-up display to view

the real world. The ease of using the microscope, including how difficult it is to focus on the rocks and how

convenient or inconvenient the system is as a whole, was noted.

V. Results and Analysis

The evaluation of the Geological Toolkit encompasses both

in-situ testing to assess the effectiveness of the assembly as

a whole and benchtop experimentation to investigate the

integrated heads-up display in greater detail and to discover

future improvements that could be made to the system.

After the subject was described the experiment and asked

to sign a waiver of agreement, a donning process began,

which encompassed the experimental setup including

scientific materials along with the standard spacesuit

assembly.

A. Field Testing

1. Effectiveness During Walking Motion

Flat Terrain: The final feature of the staff was its convenience and

usefulness while walking. All of the subjects agreed that on flat

land, the staff was not necessary, yet was not a large burden due to

its light weight. Two of the subjects had above-average

heights, and commented that the staff was not easy to use as

they had to bend down in order to hold even the top-most part

of the instrument. It was noted that a longer staff, which

could possibly have a telescoping feature, would be an

effective addition to the overall assembly.

Uphill Slope: Two of the four subjects stated that the staff did

help them while climbing uphill, as it acted as a base to apply

more force to climb, and helped to catch them when loose

sediment underneath them slipped down the hill. This was

not an ideal result as half of the subjects were unsatisfied.

One of the remaining two subjects was able to explain that

the staff was the most effective when using the procedure of

only applying pressure on the two larger prongs, which

should face in the direction of motion, and ignoring the rod

Figure 8. Digging out a rock on flat terrain.

Figure 7. Walking down an inclined plane with

suit fully donned.

Figure 9. Results of digging test.

entirely. This was not the method that all of the subjects used which could have led to the discerning results.

Downhill Slope: For the downhill process, three subjects responded that the staff assisted their dissension; however

they used differing methods to successfully descend. Two people agreed that having the two prongs facing the

direction of motion assisted them the greatest amount, whereas the third believed that having only the rod facing

downhill, in the direction of motion, would be of the greatest benefit.

Pre-EVA Training: Subjects should be instructed on multiple methods of how to use the staff when walking up and

down a hill, and should be given the choice of deciding which

method is the most useful for them. Further investigation on

which of the methods used by the subjects of this experiment was

most helpful, and the use of a larger sample size could improve

the understanding about this debate.

2. Standing Capability

Results: On flat ground, the tool received an average Modified

Cooper-Harper Rating of 1.25 for its ability to stand, meaning that

this task could be performed with a tolerable workload without

improvements, and was highly desirable. Although the ratings of

this task while on an uphill and downhill slope only varied

slightly, the comments of one participant suggested that more time could still be spent to improve the staff.

Comments and Pre-EVA Training: Having the staff stand on even soft

terrain proved more difficult than imagined at first. Upon testing the staff

on an uphill slope, the subject commented on the apparent lack of

knowledge about how to get the staff to stand on such an incline. It took a

few minutes to manipulate the tool to successfully get it to stand, but the

subject responded that the task was easy to perform once proper training

was received. This explanation shows how a pre-field training exercise

would decrease the time it takes to complete each task, and would

improve the overall effectiveness of the extra-vehicular activity.

3. Capability to Dig

Results: A training session would also encompass the digging ability,

which held an average rating of 2.25, which was the second

worst rating after the grasping feature. A trend can be noted

that the digging feature received a worse rating on flat land

than it did on either an uphill or downhill slope. This might

be attributed to the fact that the subjects would attempt the

digging process first on flat land, than on an uphill and then

downhill slope. The lack of a varied order of performance

might have led to this trend, as the subjects learned how to

effectively use the digging feature after multiple trials.

Further observations comparing the uphill versus downhill

performance will not be discussed quantitatively as the order

of which a subject tried digging in either case might lead to

inaccurate data.

Further Testing: This inaccuracy was complimented by the

loose soil of which the subjects tested the staff upon. This

loose soil made it a considerably simpler process to

successfully dig out the rocks in the field. In further testing, the

Figure 10. Picking up a rock on an inclined plane

Figure 11. Results for sample collection task (grasping a rock

sample).

Figure 12. Aggregate performance results.

subjects should assess the difference between rough and soft sediment in order to prove when this tool would be

helpful in a real-life setting.

Possible Improvements: In the future, a more shovel-like

concept would greatly increase its digging capabilities.

Shaping the third prong to mimic a miniature shovel would be

more useful in the collection process if it had small walls on

either side to hold in the samples, but its ability to dig would

be hindered and should not be ignored.

4. Grasping a Rock

Results: The ability of the staff to grasp a rock was given the

worst ranking, with an average of 4.5 out of ten points

throughout the entire experiment. The staff was not long

enough for two of the four subjects, which made it difficult to

bend down to use the staff efficiently. There were also only

two surfaces on the staff of which were used to pick up the

rocks, although the preliminary planning for this experiment

called for three, for increased stability. These two

surfaces were not large enough, as specifically noted

by three of the four subjects. Although the third, metal

prong did not contribute much surface area for

stability, it was helpful in standing in loose sediment,

and proved to be a decent digging tool.

Possible Improvement: The difficulty of using a long

stick to hand oneself a soil sample mandates the use of

another astronaut to be effective, to hand a sample to a

teammate in the field. To further improve the grasping

capability, more time should be spent to create a new

system involving mechanical advantage in order to

limit the workload the subject must exert to pick up a

rock and hold it in place. This would prove useful

when larger rocks need to be observed in more detail,

and could be complimented with an easily alignable

compartment to hold the rock. Constructing prongs

that would encase the rocks and then lock its position

would be ideal, and could be accomplished without

giving up its ability to stand. In the current setting, the

handle used to grasp the staff applies pressure by

bringing the prongs together, initially used to keep a

rock sample in place. A lever that was not located on

the very top of the staff would allow pressure to be

administered without closing the prongs, and would

negate the constant force the subject would have to

administer to keep the rock in place. If this lever was

located within an arm’s reach in the middle of the staff,

than a separate handle could be located on the top of the

staff to allow for the user to simply lean on, or hold onto

the staff while climbing uphill without concern about

unsteady, moving prongs.

Figure 13. Using the microscope to observe

characteristics of a rock specimen.

5. Additional Improvements Suggested

Lockable Handle: Another improvement mentioned was to create a handle where pressure could be administered

without closing the prongs. In the current setting, the handle used to grasp the staff applies pressure by bringing the

prongs together, initially used to keep a rock sample in place. A lever that could lock in place would be ideal in

holding the rock samples, and would also negate the constant force the subject would have to administer to keep the

rock in place. If this lever was located within an arm’s reach in the middle of the staff, than a separate handle could

be located on the top of the staff to allow for the user to simply lean on, or hold onto the staff while climbing uphill

without concern about unsteady, moving prongs.

Telescoping Feature: In order to travel efficiently with the low-weight Toolkit, it would be useful to be able to

change the size of the staff itself. By miniturizing the product, astronauts would be able to carry the utensil on their

back until reaching a suitable environment, where it could be easily deployed. By adding a telescoping feature, the

size of the subject using the tool would also be taken into consideration, as the height of the staff could easily be

altered.

B. Benchtop Testing

The heads-up display setup was the pinnacle of the Geological Toolkit in terms of technologically advanced

capabilities. This has supplied the subjects with an opportunity to view rock samples on an entirely new scale,

enabling them to observe extremophiles in their natural environment instead of carrying samples back to our own

artificial world to analyze in the laboratory. The scientist is able to view the microscopic image on the helmet visor

itself, which is convenient as the user does not even have to bend down to directly look at the specimen. The testing

that occurred inside the Habitat began by simply classifying rock characteristics, and soon evolved to spark

comments on the user interface of the system as a whole, and the usefulness such a system could have in a real-time

space environment. The microscope and heads-up display received a ranking of 4.7 on a ten point Cooper-Harper

scale, meaning that the tool is satisfactory yet an improvement of tools is recommended, and the task requires a

considerable but not extensive amount of improvement before it is efficient to use in the field. Figure 13 shows the

microscope held close to a rock sample in the field. Note the staff standing on its own to the left and the two

mounting devices, one on the abdomen used to hold the electronic devices and the other on the arm, used to mount

the microscope. This depicts the anticipated integrated use of the microscope-camera and heads-up display features

in the field. This feature was not able to be fully tested in the field, however, due to unforeseen power supply

difficulties; the device was not able to hold a charge long enough to conduct the full array of testing. Adapting to the

situation, benchtop testing was conducted as an alternative, in order to characterize this feature system.

Upon donning the microscope and heads-up display,

subjects began noting some inconvenient implications

that the system as a whole encompassed. For most of the

participants, the colors projected onto the heads-up

display were too dull and only appeared to be shades of

grey and white, which were hard to distinguish at times.

There was a consistent feeling between subjects that the

display acted similarly to a pair of sunglasses, in that it

made the exterior world seem dark. An additional

comment was that the entire system should not be

permanent, but instead should be able to be triggered on

or off. The display could either be constructed on a

pivot to physically move on or off the face, or could

disengage its semi-transparent feature to vary the amount

of light that can pass through, similar to polarization in

sunglasses. The most difficult portion of the microscope

and heads-up display is the focusing of the microscope

on the rock itself. Even without gloves on, the subjects commented that performing the task of focusing the

microscope was manageable with some difficulty. Upon fully donning a spacesuit, a more intricate method will be

used in the future to integrate an automatic device where the wearer can simply press a button to focus in either

direction. Unfortunately, one of the participants could not concentrate on the heads-up display long enough to

Figure 14. Analog Martian Terrain at the MDRS Site.

perceive a useful depiction of the sample without the onset of eye strain. Differing methods of displaying

information on heads-up display visors should be pursued to avoid such complications from repeating themselves.

The benefits of the system seemed to be matched by the complications that arose from using this first prototype, but

despite these complications, the heads-up display was effective as subjects noted that they could see colonies of

extremophiles on the rock samples. A majority of subjects believed that the system would help to determine grain

size of a sample, especially if an additional grid was overlaid on the heads-up display, however few other

characteristics could be qualitatively determined using this system.

VI. Conclusions and Future Work

A large limiting factor of this experiment was that the subjects were constantly testing the features of the staff on

loose terrain. The results would be vastly different and much more helpful if each task was performed on terrains of

varying hardness. However this experiment still supplied ample insight to further investigate the geological

evaluation tool. One suggestion was to strap the

staff onto the subject when travelling through a

rougher terrain since the staff itself does not have

a large weight. Although this would be

unpleasant to the wearer, this is a valid concept if

the staff were unable to stand. This loose soil

also made it a considerably simpler process to

successfully dig out the rocks in the field. In

further testing, the subjects should assess the

difference between rough and soft sediment in

order to prove when this tool would be helpful in

a real-life setting.

Overall, it was mentally comforting for the

subjects to use the staff while ascending or

descending, even if it was of little value for the

actual tasks performed. The overall assessment of the capability to climb was hindered by the small slope that was

used in the experiment. All of the subjects agreed that although the staff was not tremendously helpful in the test

setting, it would be more effective if used on a steeper slope. More testing should be performed in soft as well as

rough terrain, on steep as well as relatively flat hills, and with a larger sample size in order to more accurately assess

the geological evaluation tool.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Dr. David Akin and Massimiliano DiCapua for sharing their insights and expertise in the field of

human factors design. Thanks also to Dr. Darryll Pines for his support of this research, whose encouragement

opened up windows of opportunity for us. Special thanks to the generous financial supporters, whose contributions

of hardware and funding made this research possible: the Maryland Space Grant Consortium, the A. James Clark

School of Engineering, the Space Systems Laboratory at the University of Maryland, and the Spaceward Bound

program, as well as Dr. Chris McKay and Dr. Carol Stoker of the NASA Ames Research Center.

Many thanks also go to the MDRS Mission Support team, as well as Artemis Westenberg, DG Lusko, James Harris,

and Jon Rask, who provided invaluable assistance when challenges arose in operating the life support systems

during the mission, especially during two extremely cold desert nights. Much appreciation also goes to our friends

and fellow members of Crew 86, who volunteered as willing test subjects during the field-testing portion of the

MDRS mission.

References 1“Experiment Operations During Apollo EVAs,” Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science. Johnson Space

Flight Center, URL: http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/humanexplore/exploration/exlibrary/docs/apollocat/part1/GeoTools.htm

[cited 16 March 2010].

2Allton, J., “Catalog of Apollo Lunar Surface Geological Sampling Tools and Containers,” Apollo Lunar Surface

Journal, URL: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/tools/Welcome.html [cited 16 March 2010].

3Barker, R., “Collecting Rocks,” United States Geological Survey [online publications directory], URL:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/collect1/collectgip.html [cited 16 March 2010].

4Wohletz, K., and Heiken, G., Volcanology and Geothermal Energy, University of California Press, The Regents of

the University of California, 1992, pp. 320-322.

5Allton, J. Catalog of Apollo Lunar Surface Geological Sampling Tools and Containers,” Apollo Lunar Surface

Journal, URL: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/tools/judy53.jpg [cited 16 March 2010].