MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

2023 EELS Field Tests at Athabasca Glacier as an Icy Moon Analogue Environment

2024· article· en· W4396875731 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Paton, Richard Rieber, Sarah Cruz, Matt Gildner, Chantelle Abma, Kevin Abma, Sina Aghli, Eric Ambrose, Avak Archanian, Elizabeth Bagshaw, Cathy Baroco, Andrew Blackstock, Joseph Bowkett, Morgan L. Cable, Eduardo Cartaya, Guglielmo Daddi, Tomas Drevinskas, Rachel Etheredge, Tom Gall, Alex Gardner, Peter V. Gavrilov, Nikola Georgiev, Katie Graham, Benjamin Hockman, Bryson Jones, Scott Linn, Michael J. Malaska, E. Marteau, Nick Maslen, Hovhannes Melikyan, Yashwanth Kumar Nakka, Jason Nelson, Michele Pazzini, Martin Peticco, Michael Prior-Jones, Matthew L. Robinson, Christiahn Roman, Rob Royce, Mary Ryan, Lori Shiraishi, Christian Stenner, Marlin P. Strub, R. Michael Swan, Ben Swerdlow, Rohan Thakker, Luis Phillipe Tosi, Tony Tran, Tiago Vaquero, Marcel Veismann, Tom Wood, Harshad Zade, Masahiro Ono

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsTerrainIcy moonGlacierAstrobiologyPlumeGeologyEnceladusImpact craterRemote sensingPlanetGeomorphologyMeteorologySaturnPhysicsGeographyAstronomyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

JPL is developing a versatile and highly intelligent Exobiology Extant Life Surveyor (EELS) robot that would enable access to subsurface oceans and near-surface liquid reservoirs through existing conduits, such as the vents at the south pole of Enceladus or the putative geysers on Europa. A key mobility requirement for future vent exploration missions will be the ability to carefully descend and hold position in the vent to collect and analyze samples while withstanding plume forces without human intervention. Furthermore, this must be accomplished in a highly uncertain environment, requiring versatile hardware and intelligent autonomy. To work towards that goal, we have prototyped the EELS 1.0 and EELS 1.5 robots for horizontal and vertical mobility, respectively, in icy terrain. Autonomous surface mobility of EELS 1.0 was previously validated in a variety of terrain, including snowy mountains, ice rinks, and desert sand. Vertical mobility of EELS 1.5 was developed on laboratory ice walls. This paper presents the first mobility trials for both robots on large-scale, natural icy terrain: the Athabasca Glacier located in Alberta, Canada, a terrestrial analogue to the surfaces and subsurfaces of icy moons. This paper provides a preliminary written record of the test campaign’s four major trials: 1) surface mobility with EELS 1.0, 2) vertical mobility with EELS 1.5, 3) science instrument validation, and 4) terramechanics experiments. During this campaign, EELS 1.5 successfully held position and descended ~1.5 m vertically in an icy conduit and EELS 1.0 demonstrated surface mobility on icy surfaces with undulations and slopes. A miniaturized capillary electrophoresis (CE) instrument built to the form factor of an EELS module was tested in flowing water on the glacier and successfully demonstrated automated sampling and in-situ analysis. Terramechanics experiments designed to better understand the interaction between different ice properties and the screws that propel the robot forwards were performed on horizontal and vertical surfaces. In this paper we report the outcomes of the four tests and discuss their implications for potential future icy missions. The field test also demonstrated EELS’s ability to support Earth science missions. Another potential near-term follow-on could be a technology demonstration on the Moon. This paper is a high level report on the execution of the field test. Data and results will be detailed in subsequent publications.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207