978-1-4799-1622-1/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE

1

Mars2020 Sample Acquisition and Caching Technologies

and Architectures Kris Zacny

Honeybee Robotics 398 W Washington Blvd, Suite 200

Pasadena, CA 91103 510-207-4555

zacny@honeybeerobotics.com

Phil Chu Honeybee Robotics

398 W Washington Blvd, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91103

626-421-7902 chu@honeybeerobotics.com

Kiel Davis Honeybee Robotics 460 West 34

th Street

New York, NY 10001 646-459-7809

davis@honeybeerobotics.com

Gale Paulsen Honeybee Robotics

398 W Washington Blvd, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91103

626-421-7902 paulsen@honeybeerobotics.com

Jack Craft

Honeybee Robotics 398 W Washington Blvd, Suite 200

Pasadena, CA 91103 626-421-7902

craft@honeybeerobotics.com

Abstract—The goal of the Mars2020 mission is to acquire up to

28 rock/regolith samples and 3 blanks (or 34 rock/regolith

samples and 3 blanks), and cache these for the future sample

return mission. Honeybee Robotics investigated three

architectures; however only two showed promise. In the One

Bit One Core (OBOC) architecture, individual drill bits with

core samples are cached. This is the least complex architecture

and results in the total mass (cache+bits+rocks) of less than 2

kg and Orbital Sample diameter of 19 cm for the 31 cores case

and slightly more (<2.4 kg cache and 20 cm OS) for the 37

cores. In the One Breakoff System One Core (OBSOC)

architecture, the breakoff tube and the sleeve with cores are

removed from the drill bit and cached. The architecture also

uses one time use bit assemblies (plus spares). This architecture

results in the lowest cache mass and OS diameter but the trade

is complexity and sampling system mass. The OBSOC cache

mass is ~1.5 kg and ~1.86 kg for the 31/37 cases respectively,

while the OS diameter is 17 cm and 17.5 cm for the 31/37 cases

respectively. All architectures use SLOT bit that allows

inspection of rock samples along their lengths prior to caching.

The paper also introduces several key technologies developed

by Honeybee Robotics over the past 15 years, including the

SLOT caching bit, the Powder and Regolith Acquisition Bit,

Rock Abrasion and Brushing Bit (RABBit), PreView Bit,

Percussive and Core Breakoff technologies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................. 1 2. UNIQUE TECHNOLOGIES .................................. 2 3. MARS2020 ARCHITECTURES ............................ 6 4. MASS AND DIMENSIONS OF RETURNABLE BITS7

5. RESULTS OF TRADE STUDIES FOR 31 CORES .. 7 6. RESULTS OF TRADE STUDIES FOR 37 CORES .. 8 7. CORE THERMAL ALTERATION ......................... 8

8. CONCLUSIONS ................................................... 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................... 9 REFERENCES ....................................................... 10 BIOGRAPHY ........................................................ 11

1. INTRODUCTION

The Mars 2020 Science Definition Team (SDT) recently

provided science and exploration guidelines for the

Mars2020 mission [Mustard et al., 2013]. These guidelines,

among other things, suggest number of rock samples that

should be cached. In particular, SDT suggested two cases.

In the first case a total of 31 samples should be cached of

which 28 need to be rocks/regolith and 3 blanks. In that case

a provision has to be made for up to 25% of the previously

cached samples to be replaceable. In the second case, the

SDT recommended caching 37 samples, of which 34 are

rocks/regolith and 3 are blanks. In this latter case, however,

no requirement for replacing of previously acquired cores

exists. In this paper we investigate both cases.

The SDT called for samples of 8 cm3 in volume or

approximately 16 grams each assuming an average sample

density of 2 g/cc. We performed initial trade studies and

determined that the rock core aspect ratio of 1.3 cm

diameter and 6 cm long would result in relatively small OS

diameters. The core length of 6 cm satisfies another SDT

requirement which requires core samples to come from at

least 5 cm depth. Coincidently, stubbier bits are also

stronger which has is an important consideration for rover

slip conditions. Our stress calculations have shown that 6

cm bits will satisfy the Mars2020 rover slip requirements.

This bit length implies the shallower drilling depth and in

turn lower risk of getting stuck, and potentially lower

drilling energy and drilling time. In addition, the large

diameter (1.3 cm) means the rock cores will likely be less

fragmented, and volatiles (if present) will more likely be

preserved. The disadvantage of a larger diameter core is the

increased force required to break the core, however this can

be addressed by increasing the size of the breakoff actuator.

All rock core drill bits are of the SLOT type which allows

observing the cores along their length prior to caching

[Zacny et al., 2013]. An additional Regolith and Powder

Acquisition Bit (PRABit) allows capture of regolith for

sample return.

2

This paper presents the results of a trade study of three

architectures suitable for the Mars2020 mission. It builds on

a number of prior Mars Sample Return studies conducted

for NASA JPL and in many cases uses technologies (e.g.

drill bits and core breakoff mechanism) that have been

extensively verified through testing in Mars chambers [Bar-

Cohen and Zacny, 2009; Zacny et al., 2013; 2012; 2011a;

2011b; 2011c].

2. UNIQUE TECHNOLOGIES

This section describes unique (and in some cases patented)

technologies that are key to the proposed Mars2020 sample

acqusition and caching architectures.

Nested Tubes Core Breakoff and Capture System

This patented, proven eccentric tube design offers a low

profile method for shearing and positively capturing cores

(no reliance on friction or gravity). In this appproach (see

Figure 1), the bit and the breakoff tube each have bores

which are slightly offset from center by the same distance.

Figure 1. Eccentric tubes core breakoff and retention

technology (patented).

During the drilling process, the two tubes are aligned such

that the through bore of the breakoff tube is aligned with the

drilling axis. To break off a core, the breakoff tube is rotated

relative to the bit, which gradually shifts the central axis of

the breakoff tube. This pushes the entire portion of the core

within the bit to one side, shearing it at the base of the

breakoff tube. Unlike other breakoff approaches that for

example pinch cores at the root, this particular breakoff

approach acts along the entire length of the core and hence it

is robust to broken or highly porous samples. An added

advantage of this approach is that the core rests on a step

and does not fall out (see Detail 1 in Figure 1).

This approach also results in a very narrow kerf (annular

groove cut by the cutters), which enables low Weight on Bit

(WOB), drilling power, time, and energy.

This approach has been implemented in eight surface core

drills since the late 1990s and succesfully verified in dozens

of rock types. In the most recent implementation, which

included 140 coring tests in 6 different rocks, this breakoff

approach successfully sheared and captured 132 rock

samples, including severely fractured cores. In only 8 cases

(6%) was a partial core retained rather than a full core

[Zacny et al., 2013]. No complete loss of cores was

observed. To improve capture rate to 100% the breakoff

tube eccentric dimenion would need to be slightly increased.

The breakoff system requires an additional degree of

freedom – the rotation of the breakoff tube. This added

actuator and rotary motion has been incorporated in a

number of unique bit designs: SLOT bit, PreView bit, and

the Powder and Regolith Acqusition Bit (PRABit) as

described in the follow on sections.

SLOT Caching Bits with Visual Verification System

As shown in Figure 2 it is impossible to determine volume

or core quality by looking at the very end of the core. It

might be possible to estimate the core within the bit by

estimating how much core material and powder were left in

and around the hole. However, this is an inaccurate

approach since the cores may get pulverized, and powder

may flow down the rock or be blown away by wind.

Figure 2. Looking at the front of the bit it is impossible

to determine the core quality and volume.

The SLOT bit is the recent innovation (closeable slot along

length of coring bit) that enables simple visual inspection of

entire core sample before caching (Figure 3). It is

instrumental in allowing various instruments not only to

3

analyze the core in situ but also to determine volume of the

core before it is cached.

Figure 3. The SLOT Bit has a dual function: allows

viewing of cores in situ and serves as a caching bit.

Figure 4. Comparison of Mk2, Mk3, and Mk4 bit design

in Kaolinite rock. Tests were conducted at 760 torr and

7 torr pressure. ROP=Rate of penetration; SE=Specific

Energy; WOB=Weight on Bit.

The SLOT bit has been prototyped and succesfully tested at

simulated Mars atmospheric pressure in Travertine rock and

is currently at TRL 5.

The SLOT bit is based on Honeybee Robotics most recent

core bit designs and represents a 4th generation of rotary-

percussive core bits for the Mars2020 mission (Figure 4).

Mk1-Mk4 bits underwent collectively over 600 coring tests

in various rock types and pressures (760 torr and 7 torr),

while deployed from four different rotary-percussive drills

(SASSI 1 and 2, RANCOR, and RoPeC). The Mk4 bit

incorporates optimum (proprietary) geometries that

successfully meet several often conflicting requirements.

For example, surviving rover slip calls for a stronger bit

with larger wall thickness, while low cache mass calls for

lighter bits and in turn low wall thickness

Powder and Regolith Acquisition Bit (PRABit)

The powder and regolith acquisition bit allows capture of

rock powder or regolith sample for earth return (Figure 5).

The bit is very similar to the SLOT bit, except the bit is full

faced (drilling an entire hole diameter) rather than coring

(cutting just a thin kerf and leaving the core behind). Two

prototype bits have been developed and successfully tested

in a range of rocks and regolith. Although the SDT does not

stipulate the requirement for rock powder acquisition, such a

requirement would be easy to meet if an instrument

requiring rock powder is part of the Mars2020 payload.

Such a bit could be integrated with two or more sieves (e.g.

1 mm and 150 micron) for acquiring or depositing powders

or regolith of target particle size. However, for sample

return of regolith, an entire sample would be captured.

The PRABit is at TRL 5.

Figure 5. The Powder and Regolith Acquisition Bit

(PRABit) has been successfully tested in regolith and

rocks. From top to bottom: before regolith capture,

confirming acquisition of regolith, ready for caching.

4

PreView Bit

The PreView bit (Figure 6) has been designed specifically to

help with in situ rock analysis by non- or semi-destructive

instruments such as Raman, IR, and LIBS. The PreView bit

is very similar to the SLOT bit except the window is much

larger allowing access to large fraction of the core. The

window is placed towards the top of the bit while the auger

is placed towards the bottom of the bit. The PreView bit has

also been tested and verified in various rock types and

reached TRL 5.

Figure 6. The PreView bit allows capture and in-situ

analysis of rock cores. From top to bottom: before

drilling (window open), after core capture (window

closed), ready for analysis (window open).

BigTooth Bit

The SDT report and the Mars2020 Announcement of

Opportunity both mention the Mars2020 sampling system’s

ability to drop a core on an observation tray. To achieve

this, Honeybee Robotics has developed a BigTooth bit.

The BigTooth bit cuts a core diameter slightly smaller than

the imaginary hole inscribed by the inner surfaces of the bits

as shown in Figure 7 [Zacny et al., 2013]. Since this

approach results in extra clearance between the core and the

inside of the bit, the core could be much more easily ejected

along the gravity vector. A few hammer blows might also be

used to help the core fall out. This technology has been

breadboarded and succesfuly tested and reached TRL 4/5.

Figure 7. The BigTooth concept allows easy ejection of

unneeded cores and hence allows reuse of the same bit.

Top: Principle of the BigTooth design. Bottom: Proof of

concept.

Long-Life Mechanical Percussor

Inspired by Apollo lunar drills, the spiral cam mechanical

percussing mechanism has been tailored for and

demonstrated to satisfy M2020 rock coring requirements.

The approach relies on a cam compressing a follower

against a spring. Every 270°, the spring accelerate the

5

follower towards the bit. Once the follower strikes the bit,

the cam picks it up again to compress against the spring (see

Figure 8).

The advantage of this approach is that it is mechanically

simple, and both the frequency and energy can be adjusted

via conventional actuators. The frequency is adjusted by

changing the speed of the cam while the energy is adjusted

by preloading the spring. This particular approach has been

succesfully incorporated in eight of Honeybee Robotics

percussive drills as well as hammer digging systems [Chu et

al., 2010; Craft et al., 2009; Zacny et al., 2009].

The Mars2020 prototype drill, SASSI, successfully operated

for over 2 milion cycles in Mars chamber; this represents

over 19 hours of operation. Assuming the Mars2020 drill

will be used approximately 40 times, and every core

acqusition task will take 15 minutes (based on the recent

MSL Curiosity drill perfomance on Mars), the required life

of the Mars2020 percussive system would be 10 hours or

approxmiately 50% of what has already been demonstrated

by the SASSI drill.

The percussive system is at TRL 5/6.

Figure 8. Cam-follower percussive system has been

integrated in eight Honeybee Robotics percussive drills.

Grinding and Brushing of Rocks

In general, there are two approaches for addressing SDT

requirements for grinding of rock surfaces. The SDT calls

for a maximum of 66 grinds (two for each of the 33 cached

rock samples; remaining 4 slots are for blanks and regolith

sample). In the first approach, a dedicated grinding tool such

as Rock Abrasion Tool can be used. In the second approach,

a grinding tool that is actuated by the Mars2020 drill could

also be a viable option (Figure 9 and Figure 10).

Honeybee Robotics developed a Surface Removal Tool for

the 2011 MSL mission. That tool reached PDR before it was

descoped in July of 2007. However, the bit development

showed great promise of meeting 6x the RAT life which is

slightly greater than the Mars2020 life requirement. A

dedicated RAT or SRT-like tool is a recommended

approach unless there is no space on the robot’s arm turret.

The Rock Abrasion and Brushing Bit (RABBit) developed

by Honeybee Robotics and successfully demonstrated in

various rocks has been actuated by a RoPeC rotary-

percussive drill and hence could meet the requirement for

the drill deployable grinder.

The RAT tool is at TRL 9, the SRT is at TRL 5/6 and the

RABBit is at TRL 5.

Figure 9. Rock Abrasion Tools options for the Mars2020

missions.

Figure 10. Rock Abrasion and Brushing Bit (RABBit)

grinding into Travertine.

6

3. MARS2020 ARCHITECTURES

Here we present three architectures and report on the results

of the trade studies. Each of the three architectures

considered has a number of common technologies as

described in previous paragraphs. In all three architectures a

drill bit or drill bit assembly is used only once. This

substantially reduces robotic complexity related to core

transfer steps and re-using of the same bit. Also the bit life

is greatly reduced, and cross contamination is minimized or

eliminated (new bit each time).

It should be noted that another architecture has been focused

on reducing cache mass by incorporating replaceable tubes

[Backes et al., 2013]. In that architecture, cores are captured

in individual tubes, while bits are re-used. The architecture

results in the lowest cache mass at an expense of sampling

complexity.

The SDT recommended either hermetic sealing of

individual samples for the Base Mars2020 mission or a dust

seal for the Threshold mission. During the trade studies we

assumed dust seals for all architectures.

One Bit One Core (OBOC) Architecture

In the One Bit One Core architecture, a core is acquired

using a low mass drill bit with integral break-off system.

Following visual verification of sample enabled by the

SLOT bit technology, the entire bit with core sample is

placed directly into cache (Figure 11). To collect and store

31 or 37 samples, the mission must be equipped with at least

31 or 37 coring bits (plus spares in the event some are

damaged due to extremely rare rover slip events). The bits

are envisioned to be light enough to make the returnable

mass fit the launch capacity of the Mars Ascent vehicle

(MAV).

The primary advantage of this approach is lower operational

complexity (risk) due to minimal manipulation of core

sample or sample tube. Its primary disadvantage is higher

returned mass and volume.

Figure 11. One Bit One Core (OBOC) Architecture.

One Bit One Core w/o Shank (OBOCWOS) Architecture

The One Bit One Core w/o Shank (OBOCWOS)

architecture is very similar to the OBOC architecture. The

main difference is that after the core sample is placed in the

cache, the bit shank is detached (Figure 12). This reduces

the mass of returnable bits and height of the cache. The

main advantage is lower operational complexity (risk) due

to minimal manipulation of core sample or sample tube and

lower returnable mass since a heavy part of the bit (the

shank) is left behind. However, its disadvantage is

complexity of detaching the shank from the rest of the bit.

Figure 12. One Bit One Core w/o Shank (OBOCWOS)

Architecture.

One Breakoff System One Core (OBSOC) Architecture

In the One Breakoff System One Core (OBSOC)

architecture, a core is acquired using a low mass drill bit

with integral break-off system just like in the previous two

architectures. However, in this architecture, following visual

verification of sample the bit’s cutting teeth, flute sleeve and

shank (i.e. an auger bit) are discarded and the core sample,

positively captured within the break-off tube, is stored in a

cache (Figure 13). Hence only the breakoff tube and sleeve

are retuned together with the core. To collect and store 31 or

37 samples, the mission must be equipped with at least 31 or

37 bit assemblies (removable break-off systems are pre-

installed in bits).

The main advantage of this approach is that only the

minimum elements necessary to maintain positive control of

core sample are retuned. This yields lowest returned mass

and volume.

The major disadvantage is added system complexity and

greater landed mass since each bit assembly is larger to

account for additional sleeve and more complex bit shank.

Figure 13. One Breakoff System One Core (OBSOC)

Architecture.

7

4. MASS AND DIMENSIONS OF RETURNABLE BITS

Figure 14 and Figure 15 show mass and dimensions of

returnable bits or breakoff assemblies. For all three

architectures, we assumed that all drill bit assemblies will be

made of Aluminum (density 2.7 g/cc) and the cache will be

made of AlBeMet (density of 2.07 g/cc).

Figure 14. Mass of returnable bit (OBOC and

OBOCWOS architectures) or breakoff assembly

(OBSOC architecture).

Mass is saved by moving from OBOC to more complex

architectures: OBOCWOS is 6.9 grams and OBSOC is 10.7

grams. This represents approximately 20% and 30% mass

savings for OBOCWOS and OBSOC respectively.

The bit and the breakoff assembly dimension for the 13 mm

diameter and 6 cm long core are: 22 mm in diameter and

92.3 mm long for the OBOC, 27 mm in diameter and 78

mm long for the OBOCWOS, and 17.8 mm diameter and

84.2 mm long for the OBSOC. The reason for diameter

increase in the case of OBOCWOS was driven by larger

detachable shank.

Figure 15. Dimensions of returnable bit (OBOC and

OBOCWOS architectures) or breakoff assembly

(OBSOC architecture).

5. RESULTS OF TRADE STUDIES FOR 31 CORES

Figure 16 and Figure 17 show results of the trade studies for

the three architectures.

Figure 16. Returned mass for the case of 31 cores for

each of the 3 architectures.

Comparing OBOC and OBOCWOS it can be seen that the

OBOC total sample cache (including bits and rocks) is ~140

grams heavier but the OS is 2 cm smaller. The reason the

OBOCWOS architecture has larger OS diameter is that bit

shanks (which drives the cache and in turn OS diameter) are

much larger in order to fit the shank detachment

mechanism. The 140 gram mass savings also comes at the

price of the bit mass (bits have larger and heavier shanks).

In addition, other disadvantages include the bit station’s

larger diameter to accommodate large diameter bits,

increased bit complexity since it incorporates a detachable

shank, and the drill needs to be able to actuate the shank and

in turn it will be more complex, and from an operations

standpoint, another step is required to detach the shank from

the bit and eject it onto the ground.

It is therefore recommended that the additional 140 gram

savings is too low to merit the OBOCWOS architecture.

Figure 17. Diameter and Height of the Cache and

Diameter of a spherical Orbital Sample (OS) for three

architectures under consideration.

Comparing OBOC and OBSOC it can be seen that the

OBOC total sample cache (including bits and rocks) is ~400

8

grams heavier and also the OS is 2 cm larger. However, this

mass and volume savings comes at a price as well. The

OBSOC bit size and mass is greater since bits need to

accommodate additional sleeve and larger shank, the bit

station is also larger and heavier to accommodate larger bits

(the architecture also has one time use bits), the bit

complexity is greater since breakoff tube and sleeve need to

be integrated inside, the drill has to be more complex to deal

with the additional steps of removing breakoff tube/sleeve

and inserting this assembly into cache, the bit staging area is

required for temporarily keeping the bit while the drill

removes the breakoff tube/sleeve assembly for caching, and

from the operation stand point additional steps are required

for caching.

In addition, the OBSOC cache will more likely grow in

diameter if lead-ins are needed for guiding the sample into

the cache. Such lead-ins might not be necessary for the

OBOC architecture since cutter shapes already include a

chamfer which could act as lead-in.

We believe the potential mass and OS savings warrants the

OBSOC architecture viable.

6. RESULTS OF TRADE STUDIES FOR 37 CORES

Figure 18 and Figure 19 show the trade study comparing

OBOC and OBSOC architecture for 31 and 37 cached

samples. As mentioned in previous paragraph, the

OBOCWOS architecture was found not to merit further

investigation.

The total returnable mass increases for both architectures by

almost 400 grams when number of cacheable samples

increase from 31 to 37. However, the corresponding

increase in spherical OS diameter is relatively small. In

particular the OS diameter for OBOC increases from 19 to

20 cm for 31 and 37 samples, respectively. For the OBSOC

architecture the OS diameter increase is even lower: the OS

increases from 17 cm to 17.5 cm for 31 and 27 samples,

respectively.

Figure 18. The mass of the OBOC and OBSOC

architecture for 31 and 37 cached samples.

Figure 19. Dimension of the cache and diameter of the

spherical OS for the OBOC and OBSOC architecture

for 31 and 37 cached samples.

7. CORE THERMAL ALTERATION

If rock has volatiles that need to be captured or minerals that

are sensitive to thermal alteration, the process of coring

would have to be conducted very carefully. As reported by

Zacny et al. [2009] and Szwarc et al., [2012], the core

temperature can reach in excess of 50 °C during the process

of drilling. During the rotary-drilling tests Zacny et al.,

[2009] found that there is a linear relationship between T

of the core measured by a thermocouple embedded inside

the core and the drilling Specific Energy (see Figure 20).

The difference in behavior at Mars pressure and 760 torr

was minimal. They also found that approximately 5% of

heat generated during the drilling process flows into the

core. The steady state equation for core T has also been

developed which based on empirical data uses 5% of heat

generated during the drilling process for heating up the core.

Duty cycling the drill has also been demonstrated as a

potential method to maintain core T below a required

temperature (Figure 21). The process relies on temporarily

stopping drilling to let the heat dissipate into the adjacent

rock and up the bit into the atmosphere. A 50/50 duty cycle

(drilling/stopping) could for example be used to keep the

core T below approximately 30 °C.

Just recently, Szwarc [2013] developed a LabView-based

thermal model for coring and drilling operations for both

rotary and rotary-percussive drilling approaches. The model

was verified using data acquired from a number of coring

and drilling tests in various rock types such as Kaolinite and

Basalt and also in ice at 760 torr and 7 torr pressure. He

developed a more comprehensive equation for linking core

deltaT to drilling parameters and confirmed the feasibility of

using duty cycling as an approach for maintaining core

temperature below certain value for percussive drilling.

9

Figure 20. Core temperature increase as a function of

Specific Energy of drilling. LS is a 45 MPa Indiana

Limestone. B is a 120 MPa Saddleback Basalt. Tests

were conducted at earth atmospheric pressure (~760

torr) and Mars pressure (4 torr).

nPenetratioofRateROP

densityrock

rockofcapacityheatspecificc

corethetoflowingenergyoffractionf

ROPAc

PowerfT

core

core

%5~;

***

*

Figure 21. Drilling duty cycle could be used for keeping

the core temperature below certain value.

8. CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents a number of technologies and

architectures suitable for sample acquisition and caching as

well as rock preparation for the Mars2020 mission.

Most of the technologies are at TRL 5 and have been

validated in Mars chamber testing, in many cases exceeding

the mission life requirements.

We believe that at least two architectures: One Bit One Core

(OBOC) and One Breakoff System One Core (OBSOC) are

viable options for the Mars2020 caching requirements.

These architectures meet science requirements of caching 31

or 37 samples (including blanks) and have low enough

return mass and volume to fit the launch capabilities of the

Mars Ascent Vehicle.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The work presented in this paper has been funded by the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

through various funding programs as well as Honeybee

Robotics Internal Research and Development program.

10

REFERENCES

Bar-Cohen Y., and K. Zacny [editors], Drilling in Extreme

Environments Penetration and Sampling on Earth and

Other Planets, John Wiley & Sons, 2009

Backes, P., P. Younse, A. Ganino, (2013), A Minimum Scale

Architecture for Rover-Based Sample Acquisition and

Caching, Aerospace Conference, 2013 IEEE,

10.1109/AERO.2013.6497399

Chu, P., J. Wilson, K Zacny, Arm-Deployed Rotary-

Percussive Coring Drill, eNTR: 1280506319

Craft, J., J. Wilson, P. Chu, K. Zacny, and K. Davis, (2009),

Percussive digging systems for robotic exploration and

excavation of planetary and lunar regolith, IEEE

Aerospace conference, 7-14 March 2009, Big Sky,

Montana.

Mustard, J.F., M. Adler, A. Allwood, D.S. Bass, D.W. Beaty,

J.F. Bell III, W.B. Brinckerhoff, M. Carr, D.J. Des

Marais, B. Drake, K.S. Edgett, J. Eigenbrode, L.T. Elkins-

Tanton, J.A. Grant, S. M. Milkovich, D. Ming, C. Moore,

S. Murchie, T.C. Onstott, S.W. Ruff, M.A. Sephton, A.

Steele, A. Treiman (2013): Report of the Mars 2020

Science Definition Team, 154 pp., posted July, 2013, by

the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG)

http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/MEP/Mars_2020_SDT_

Report_Final.pdf.

Szwarc, T., A. Aggarwal, S. Hubbard, B. Cantwell, K. Zacny,

A Thermal Model for Analysis and Control of Drilling in

Icy Formations on Mars, Planetary and Space Science,

Volume 73, Issue 1, December 2012, Pages 214–220

Szwarc, T., (2013), Thermal Modeling of Coring and Drilling

Operations for Solar System Exploration Applications,

PhD Dissertation, Stanford.

Zacny K., et al., (2013), Sample Acquisition and Caching

Architecture for the Mars Sample Return Mission, 2013

IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana, March

2-9, 2013.

Zacny, K., G., Paulsen, P. Chu, A. Avanesyan, J. Craft, T.

Szwarc, (2012), Mars Drill for the Mars Sample Return

Mission with a Brushing and Abrading Bit, Regolith and

Powder Bit, Core PreView Bit and a Coring Bit, IEEE

Aerospace conference, 4-10 March 2012, Big Sky,

Montana.

Zacny K., G. Paulsen, A. Avanesyan, B. Mellerowicz, T.

Makai, P. Chu, J. Craft, T. Szwarc, (2011a), Development

of the Brushing, Abrading, Regolith, Core PreView and

the Coring Bits for the Mars Sample Return Mission,

AIAA SPACE 2011 Conference & Exposition, Long

Beach, September 26-29, 2011

Kris Zacny, Jack Wilson, Phil Chu, and Jack Craft, (2011b)

Prototype Rotary Percussive Drill for the Mars Sample

Return Mission, Paper #1125, IEEE Aerospace

conference, 5-12 March 2011, Big Sky, Montana.

Zacny, K., P. Chu, J. Wilson, K. Davis, and J. Craft, (2011c),

Honeybee Approach to the Sample Acquisition and

Caching Architecture for the 2018 Mars Sample Return

Mission, Paper #1573, IEEE Aerospace conference, 5-12

March 2011, Big Sky, Montana.

Zacny, K., R. Mueller, G. Galloway, J. Craft, G. Mungas, M.

Hedlund, and P. Fink, (2009), Novel Approaches to

Drilling and Excavation on the Moon, AIAA-2009-6431,

AIAA Space 2009 Conference and Exposition, September

14-17, 2009, Pasadena, CA

Zacny, K., Y. Bar-Cohen, M. Brennan, G. Briggs, G. Cooper,

K. Davis, B. Dolgin, D. Glaser, B. Glass, S. Gorevan, J.

Guerrero, C. McKay, G. Paulsen, S. Stanley, and C.

Stoker, Drilling Systems for Extraterrestrial Subsurface

Exploration, Astrobiology Journal, Volume 8, Number 3,

2008, DOI: 10.1089/ast.2007.0179

11

BIOGRAPHY

Dr. Kris Zacny is Vice President

and Director of Exploration

Technology Group at Honeybee

Robotics. His interests include

robotic terrestrial and

extraterrestrial drilling,

excavation, sample handling and

processing, and geotechnical

systems. In his previous capacity as

an engineer in South African mines, Dr. Zacny managed

numerous mining projects and production divisions. Dr.

Zacny received his PhD from UC Berkeley in Mars

drilling and ME in Petroleum Engineering. He

participated in several Arctic and the Antarctic drilling

expeditions. Dr. Zacny has over 100 publications,

including an edited book titled “Drilling in Extreme

Environments: Penetration and Sampling on Earth and

Other Planets”.

Kiel Davis is President of Honeybee

Robotics. Mr. Davis has over 17

years experience in developing

electromechanical systems from

early concept through to flight. His

responsibilities include project

management, company resource

management, business development,

mechanical and electrical design,

control systems design, software development, systems

implementation and testing of advanced automated and

complex engineering systems. His work on space

missions, including the Mars Exploration Rovers’ Rock

Abrasion Tool, the Mars Phoenix Lander’s Icy Sample

Acquisition Device, and the Mars Science Laboratory’s

Surface Removal Tool provide him with an in-depth

understanding of the challenges and difficulties inherent

in designing mechanisms for long life in harsh

environments. He holds a B.S. in Mechanical

Engineering from University of Rochester and an M.S. in

Systems Engineering from Polytechnic University.

Philip Chu is a Systems Engineer

at Honeybee Robotics. Mr. Chu has

served as lead engineer on

numerous mechanical and

electromechanical systems,

including pneumatic and

percussive drilling systems, robotic

manipulators, and planetary

sample acquisition systems. Mr.

Chu’s experience in spaceflight systems for planetary

exploration, includes Flight Operations for NASA’s Mars

Exploration Rovers’ Rock Abrasion Tools (RAT) and the

design, integration, and testing of NASA’s Phoenix

Lander Icy Soil Acquisition Device (ISAD). Mr. Chu has

a BS and an MS in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell

University.

Gale L. Paulsen is a Systems

Engineer at Honeybee

Robotics. Prior to joining

Honeybee in 2005, he worked

with NASA’s Jet Propulsion

Laboratory as a graduate

student for two years to

develop a multi robot cliff

climbing system. At Honeybee,

he has performed field tests of robotic drilling systems in

the Canadian High Arctic and Antarctic. Paulsen has

also assisted in the development of detailed mechanical,

electrical, and software designs and analyses for multiple

projects such as Sample Manipulation System for the

2011 Mars Science Lab, Icy Soil Acquisition Device on

the 2007 Mars Phoenix Lander, Rock Abrasion Tool on

the Mars Exploration Rovers. He also lead mechanical,

electrical, and software designs for a high precision rock

grinding instrument for producing thin sections and an

automated sample acquisition and analysis system for the

mining industry. Gale holds a B.S and M.S. in

Mechanical Engineering from the University of Nebraska.

Jack Craft is a Project Manager at

Honeybee Robotics. In that role, he

has worked to ensure the success of

Honeybee’s efforts to develop

drilling and sampling technologies.

Mr. Craft is responsible for project

planning and control of our several

NASA funded R&D efforts geared

towards planetary subsurface

access and sampling. Mr. Craft

holds a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the Cooper

Union and an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering from

Rutgers University.

12