Lunar Field Exploration Scenarios for a South Pole Outpost

Purpose: The work reported here responds to the need to provide the Constellation Program Office Lunar Surface Systems Project with science requirements for lunar surface system architecture and metrics for lunar surface system operations, and to do so in a way that addresses lunar science goals, as most recently stated by the Lunar Exploration Working Group (LEAG) [1]. In response, the Surface Science Scenarios Working Group (chaired by Laurie Leshin) of the NASA HQ Outpost Science and Exploration Working Group (OSEWG) is attempting to develop science-driven lunar surface activity scenarios utilizing a small of lunar scientists with combined expertise for planning and executing lunar field studies on scales ranging from tens to hundreds of kilometers [2,3]. Operations groups have already begun to use mathematical models for field operations to maximize 'science re-turn' in terms of metrics like EVA time, samples collected , and distance covered. For these such approaches to be sound, they must consider an actual connection to the geology of a given site The metric approach without that input does not maximize scientific significance of potential field excursions. Here, we are reporting contextual to regional traverse plans in South Pole Aitken Basin [2], some of them originating from the identified outpost site at Shackleton, complementary to ongoing efforts towards local scale (10 km radius) exploration planning from sortie sites using the Apollo extended J mission model. We plan extended routes using standard field geology methodologies. Preliminary reconnaissance is based on assessment of digital remote data and inter-pretive maps. Stations for study are located where the best indications of the stratigraphy (as surface or near-surface exposures), structure, and origin of a local feature (e.g., volcanic dome) or terrane (e.g., basin) are (a) along a most accessible route (in terms of overall relief) and (b) best sampled and documented in situ using the least possible number of field camps or sites. Scenarios scientific merit is considered in terms of the advancement of high priority science objectives, as identified in the latest LEAG roadmap). Rules and Tools: We assume the mobility capabilities of the most mature version of lunar surface architecture now being considered as well as Apollo 'ground rules' for crew activities [4] (continuous EVA time (8 hours), walk back from any rover <10 km) and Apollo J mission logs to indicate reasonable mobility of a roving vehicle (average 5 to 10 km/hour, driven about half of the time during …