The Systems Engineering Project Management Advancement Program (SEPMAP) at NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) is an employee development program designed to provide graduate level training in project management and systems engineering. The program includes an applied learning project with engineering and integrated science goals requirements. The teams were presented with a task: Collect a representative sample set from a field site using a hexacopter platform, as if performing a scientific reconnaissance to assess whether the site is of sufficient scientific interest to justify exploration by astronauts. Four teams worked through the eighteen-month course to design customized sampling payloads integrated with the hexacopter, and then operate the aircraft to meet sampling requirements of number (≥ 5) and mass (≥ 5g each). The Mars Yard at JSC was utilized for this purpose. This project activity closely parallels NASA plans for the future exploration of Mars, where remote sites will be reconnoitered ahead of crewed exploration.

Beginning in as early as 2023, crewed missions beyond low Earth orbit will begin enabled by the new capabilities of the SLS and Orion vehicles. This will initiate the "Proving Ground" phase of human exploration with Mars as an ultimate destination. The primary goal of the Proving Ground is to demonstrate the capability of suitably long duration spaceflight without need of continuous support from Earth, i.e. become Earth Independent. A major component of the Proving Ground phase is to conduct research activities aimed at accomplishing major objectives selected from a wide variety of disciplines including but not limited to: Astronomy, Heliophysics, Fundamental Physics, Planetary Science, Earth Science, Human Systems, Fundamental Space Biology, Microgravity, and In A major component of the Proving Ground phase is to conduct research activities aimed at accomplishing major objectives selected from a wide variety of disciplines including but not limited to: Astronomy, Heliophysics, Fundamental Physics, Planetary Science, Earth Science, Human Systems, Fundamental Space Biology, Microgravity, and In Situ Resource Utilization. Mapping and prioritizing the most important objectives from these disciplines will provide a strong foundation for establishing the architecture to be utilized in the Proving Ground.

NASA recently requested that MEPAG evaluate the scientific objectives that could/should be carried out by a potential human mission to Mars that, for planning purposes, is assumed to launch in 2035. One of the key working conclusions is that sample-based science stands out as one of the more important aspects of a potential overall science package (recognizing that there would additionally be other scientific aspects of such a mission that would not be sample-based).

The Moon Mars Analog Mission Activities Mauna Kea 2012 (MMAMA 2012) field campaign aimed to assess how effectively an integrated science and engineering rover team operating on a 24-h planning cycle facilitates high-fidelity science products. The science driver of this field campaign was to determine the origin of a glacially-derived deposit: was the deposit the result of (1) glacial outwash from meltwater; or (2) the result of an ice dam breach at the head of the valley?Lessons learned from MMAMA 2012 science operations include: (1) current rover science operations scenarios tested in this environment provide adequate data to yield accurate derivative products such as geologic maps; (2) instrumentation should be selected based on both engineering and science goals; and chosen during, rather than after, mission definition; and (3) paralleling the tactical and strategic science processes provides significant efficiencies that impact science return. The MER-model concept of operations utilized, in which rover operators were sufficiently facile with science intent to alter traverse and sampling plans during plan execution, increased science efficiency, gave the Science Backroom time to develop mature hypotheses and science rationales, and partially alleviated the problem of data flow being greater than the processing speed of the scientists. (C) 2015 IAA. Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of IAA. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licensesiby-nc-nd/4.0/).

Plans to send humans to Mars are in work and the launch system is being built. Are we ready? Robotic missions have successfully demonstrated transportation, entry, landing and surface operations but for human missions there are significant, potentially show-stopping issues. These issues, called Strategic Knowledge Gaps (SKGs) are the unanswered questions concerning long-duration exploration beyond low-earth-orbit. The gaps represent a risk of loss of life or mission and because they require extended exposure to the weightless environment outside earth's protective geo-magnetic field they cannot be resolved on the earth or on the International Space Station (ISS). Placing a laboratory at the relatively close and stable lunar Distant Retrograde Orbit (DRO) provides an accessible location with the requisite environmental conditions for conducting SKG research and testing mitigation solutions. Configurations comprised of multiple 3 meter and 4.3 meter diameter modules have been studied but the most attractive solution uses elements of the human Mars launch vehicle or Space Launch System (SLS) for a Mars proving ground laboratory. A shortened version of an SLS hydrogen propellant tank creates a Skylab-like pressure vessel that flies fully outfitted on a single launch. This not only offers significant savings by incorporating SLS pressure vessel development costs but avoids the expensive ISS approach using many launches with substantial on-orbit assembly before becoming operational. One of the most challenging SKGs is crew radiation protection; this is why SKG laboratory research is combined with Mars transit Habitat systems development. Fundamentally, the two cannot be divorced because using the habitat systems for protection requires actual hardware geometry and material properties intended to contribute to shielding effectiveness. The SKGs are difficult problems, solutions are not obvious, and require integrated, iterative, and multi-disciplinary development. A lunar DRO lab built from the launch system elements enables an early and representative transit habitat test bed necessary for closing gaps before sending humans on a 1000 day Mars mission.

Terrestrial geologic mapping techniques are regularly used for "photogeologic" mapping of other planets, but these approaches are complicated by the diverse type, areal coverage, and spatial resolution of available data sets. When available, spatially-limited in-situ human and/or robotic surface observations can sometimes introduce a level of detail that is difficult to integrate with regional or global interpretations. To assess best practices for utilizing observations acquired from orbit and on the surface, our team conducted a comparative study of geologic mapping and interpretation techniques. We compared maps generated for the same area in the San Francisco Volcanic Field (SFVF) in northern Arizona using 1) data collected for reconnaissance before and during the 2010 Desert Research And Technology Studies campaign, and 2) during a traditional, terrestrial field geology study. The operations, related results, and direct mapping comparisons are discussed in companion LPSC abstracts [1-3]. Here we present new geologic interpretations for a volcanic cone and related lava flows as derived from all approaches involved in this study. Mapping results indicate a need for caution when interpreting past eruption conditions on other planetary surfaces from orbital data alone.

Geologic mapping involves inter-preting relationships between identifiable units and landforms to understand the formative history of a re-gion. Traditional field techniques are used to accom-plish this on Earth. Mapping proves more challenging for other planets, which are studied primarily by orbital remote sensing and, less frequently, by robotic and human surface exploration. Systematic comparative assessments of geologic maps created by traditional mapping versus photogeology together with data from planned traverses are limited [1]. The objective of this project is to produce a geologic map from data collect-ed on the Desert Research and Technology Studies (RATS) 2010 analog mission using Apollo-style traverses in conjunction with remote sensing data. This map is compared with a geologic map produced using standard field techniques [see Bleacher et al.; Skinner et al.; Eppler et al.; this session].

Cartographic products and - specifically - geologic maps provide critical assistance for establishing physical and temporal frameworks of planetary surfaces. The technical methods that result in the creation of geologic maps vary depending on how observations are made as well as the overall intent of the final products [1-3]. These methods tend to follow a common linear work flow, including the identification and delineation of spatially and temporally discrete materials (units), the documentation of their primary (emplacement) and secondary (erosional) characteristics, analysis of the relative and absolute age relationships between these materials, and the collation of observations and interpretations into an objective map product. The "objectivity" of a map is critical cross comparison with overlapping maps and topical studies as well as its relevance to scientific posterity. However, the "accuracy" and "correctness" of a geologic map is very subject to debate. This can be evidenced by comparison of existing geologic maps at various scales, particularly those compiled through field- and remote-based mapped efforts. Our study focuses on comparing the fidelity of (1) "Apollo-style" geologic investigations, where typically non-geologist crew members follow static traverse routes established through pre-mission planning, and (2) "traditional" field-based investigations, where geologists are given free rein to observe without preplanned routes. This abstract summarizes the regional geology wherein our study was conducted, presents the geologic map created from traditional field mapping techniques, and offers basic insights into how geologic maps created from different tactics can be reconciled in support of exploratory missions. Additional abstracts [4-6] from this study discuss various exploration and science results of these efforts.