FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2317789715> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2317789715 abstract "A robotic airship can provide an extremely versatile tool that has several advantages over orbiters, landers, rovers, and balloons. The airship can survey an extremely large expanse of territory, unlike landers and rovers, at a proximity allowing detailed resolution imagery, unlike orbiters, while retaining maneuverability, unlike balloons. The question then arises: Is a robotic airship feasible on Mars? An airship must be able to survive in the hostile environment as well as perform effectively within it. Furthermore, it should provide a capability commensurate with its overall cost. This project found that a robotic Martian airship would be feasible. First, a characterization of the atmosphere determined the parameters of the operational environment. Then, a suitability analysis used the atmospheric model and narrowed down the airship configuration to a superpressure type. Additionally, an experimental composite gas envelope beat out Mylar and Nylon 66 as the only practical material. Finally, an actual design of a robotic airship demonstrated sufficient capability with a respectable safety margin at a low launch mass. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the following for their support: Dr. Earl Thornton, Kerry Nock of JPL, Dr. Rand of Winzen Engineering, John Krausman of TCOM L.P., Matt Hume, George Weinmann, and Mr. and Mrs. Rene A. Girerd SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION This paper seeks to prove the validity of an airship as a robotic exploration vehicle for the planet Mars. Results from an investigation of the compatibility of airship vehicles with the particular parameters of the Martian environment will lead to a preliminary design of an actual Martian airship. The paper intends to establish a starting point from which further development of its original concept may proceed. Rationale and Scone I advance that airships provide an ideal platform for the robotic exploration of Mars. In the near term, robotic Martian exploration will be affected by four different methods; orbiters, landers, rovers, and of Aeronautics and balloons. Of these, only the surface rovers can explore the Martian landscape directly in a mobile and intelligent manner. Orbiters fly far away, landers remain stationary, and balloons travel on the whims of a breeze. Yet even the surface rovers currently envisioned have severe limitations. They move excruciatingly slowly. The robotic rover scheduled to launch to Mars in late 1996 as part of the Mars Pathfinder program travels at around 1 cm per second. Such a rate does not allow widespread investigation of the planet's surface. The limiting factor lies in the difficulty in traversing the often rocky and boulder-strewn terrain. Since signals can take up to about 44 minutes to travel between Mars and Earth and back, having an Earth based controller for a robotic rover appears impractical. For example, the time between when a rover detected a boulder, and when it received the controller's command to turn either right or left, could be approaching an hour. This is due to the vast distance between the two planets. Because of the vast distance, sophisticated artificial intelligence circuits must reside in the rover to provide a degree of autonomy, which, in order to operate effectively, requires it to travel at a very slow speed. This speed limits the exploration footprint area, and virtually negates a rover's understood goal of opening up uncharted territory away from the lander. A robotic airship, on the other hand, would operate above the rough terrain, so it would require a less timedependent and complex artificial intelligence system. Between periodic course corrections from Earth, its autopilot could maintain a cruise while its sensors gathered data from a stable platform. Thus, an airship could survey much more of the Martian surface than a rover, and from a more useful vantage point. A robotic airship, aside from taking photos, video, and spectroscopic data of its surroundings from a distance, can also be used to conduct tests of the Martian surface directly. Small sensor stations or radio beacons could be dropped at interesting points that are discovered. Indeed, it could even be feasible to anchor the airship during suitable weather and collect soil samples for immediate or later analysis. Evidently, the airship offers a versatile platform for a variety of tasks in which it can use its high mobility to an advantage. From this point on, the rationale of a robotic airship will be assumed accepted, if not at least defined. The crux of the paper consists not in proving why the airship would be the best theoretical Martian exploration method, but rather if it could be used at all. Therefore, the ensuing pages focus on the question of feasibility, the main determinants of which are twofold. First, the airship must survive in its environment. Second, the airship must offer enough capability to perform its data gathering mission in a manner commensurate with its l , , 6 Americ nautics, Inc. All rights reserved." @default.
• W2317789715 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2317789715 creator A5045133248 @default.
• W2317789715 date "1997-06-03" @default.
• W2317789715 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W2317789715 title "A case for a robotic Martian airship" @default.
• W2317789715 cites W2029801896 @default.
• W2317789715 doi "https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1997-1460" @default.
• W2317789715 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W2317789715 type Work @default.
• W2317789715 sameAs 2317789715 @default.
• W2317789715 citedByCount "8" @default.
• W2317789715 countsByYear W23177897152021 @default.
• W2317789715 crossrefType "proceedings-article" @default.
• W2317789715 hasAuthorship W2317789715A5045133248 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConcept C127313418 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConcept C146978453 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConcept C178802073 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConcept C2778600265 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConcept C62649853 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConcept C83260615 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConcept C87355193 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConceptScore W2317789715C121332964 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConceptScore W2317789715C127313418 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConceptScore W2317789715C127413603 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConceptScore W2317789715C146978453 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConceptScore W2317789715C178802073 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConceptScore W2317789715C2778600265 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConceptScore W2317789715C39432304 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConceptScore W2317789715C41008148 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConceptScore W2317789715C62649853 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConceptScore W2317789715C83260615 @default.
• W2317789715 hasConceptScore W2317789715C87355193 @default.
• W2317789715 hasLocation W23177897151 @default.
• W2317789715 hasOpenAccess W2317789715 @default.
• W2317789715 hasPrimaryLocation W23177897151 @default.
• W2317789715 hasRelatedWork W1545817325 @default.
• W2317789715 hasRelatedWork W1638441629 @default.
• W2317789715 hasRelatedWork W2004878843 @default.
• W2317789715 hasRelatedWork W2089707967 @default.
• W2317789715 hasRelatedWork W2895885269 @default.
• W2317789715 hasRelatedWork W2963551866 @default.
• W2317789715 hasRelatedWork W3097094124 @default.
• W2317789715 hasRelatedWork W3123226753 @default.
• W2317789715 hasRelatedWork W4210309626 @default.
• W2317789715 hasRelatedWork W4250508681 @default.
• W2317789715 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2317789715 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2317789715 magId "2317789715" @default.
• W2317789715 workType "article" @default.