S c i e n c e R o b o t i cs | R e v i e w

AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES Copyright © 2024 The

Authors, some rights
Exploring beyond Earth using space robotics reserved; exclusive
licensee American
Association for the
Steve A. Chien1*, Gianfranco Visentin2, Connor Basich1 Advancement of
Science. No claim to
Robotic spacecraft enable exploration of our Solar System beyond our human presence. Although spacecraft have original U.S.
explored every planet in the Solar System, the frontiers of space robotics are at the cutting edge of landers, rovers, Government Works
and now atmospheric explorers, where robotic spacecraft must interact intimately with their environment to ex-
plore beyond the reach of flyby and orbital remote sensing. Here, we describe the tremendous growth in space
robotics missions in the past 7 years, with many new entities participating in missions to the surface of the Moon,
Mars, and beyond. We also describe the recent development of aerial missions to planets and moons, as exempli-
fied by the Ingenuity helicopter on Mars and the Dragonfly mission to Titan. We focus on suborbital robotics—
landers, rovers, and aerial vehicles—with associated challenges in sensing, manipulation, mobility, and system-­level
autonomy.

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Tsinghua University on September 06, 2024

INTRODUCTION 2020. The Indian Space Agency (ISRO) also embarked on an ambi-
Humans are conspicuously adapted to planet Earth. Although hu- tious lunar program. Unfortunately, although the Chandrayaan
mans have explored all seven continents of Earth, they require a 2 spacecraft failed to land in 2019, a successor mission, Chandrayaan
narrow range of temperatures and a very specific mixture of gases to 3, launched in July 2023, successfully landed in August 2023 and op-
breathe. Furthermore, they require a constant supply of nutrients erated for 12 days before entering sleep mode. The Hakuto-­R mis-
and water to survive. Because of the technical challenge and expense sion aimed to be the first private mission to the Moon but failed
of providing this required human-­friendly environment, aside from during landing in April 2023. The Russian Luna 25 lunar lander mis-
a handful of excursions to the Moon more than 50 years ago (the last sion launched in August 2023, although the mission ended when the
human mission to the Moon was NASA’s Apollo 17 mission, which lander crashed into the Moon’s surface 9 days later. Japan Aerospace
occurred in 1972), human space flight has been limited to low Earth Exploration Agency (JAXA)‘s Smart Lander for Investigating the
orbit, only 400 km above Earth’s surface. Moon (SLIM) launched in September 2023 and successfully landed
Robotic spacecraft offer the means to extend our reach. Although on the Moon in January 2024 (3). Intuitive-­Machines’ 1 NOVA-­C
constructing robotic spacecraft that withstand the extremes of tem- Odysseus Lander landed near the Moon’s south pole on 22 February
perature, atmosphere, and long durations required by spaceflight is 2024 and was operational until 28 February 2024. Moreover, numer-
challenging and costly, it still pales in comparison with the chal- ous additional launches are planned, with NASA targeting commer-
lenges and expense of sending humans to deep space. Because of cial space services via its Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS)
this reduced cost, robotic spacecraft have visited every planet in the program, which has funded eight lunar landers between 2023 and
Solar System. As of 2024, there have been 50 missions (all robotic) 2026, including multiple rovers. See Table 2 for more details.
to Mars alone, albeit with more than half of these missions failing (1). Mars remains the most challenging regularly visited target for
However, from a robotics perspective, the leading edge of space ro- surface robotic missions. In the time since the last survey (2) in the
botics missions is represented by surface and proximity operations period of 2017 to 2024, the Mars Science Laboratory/Curiosity rov-
missions. Although all space missions must address the extremes of er has continued productive science on Mars and was joined in 2021
outer space, surface and proximity missions must interact much more by the M2020/Perseverance rover and Ingenuity helicopter. NASA’s
closely with the target environment, whether small body, moon, or InSight mission landed on Mars in 2018 and operated for more than
planetary atmosphere and surface. These missions are presented with 700 sols studying the martian interior. The CNSA Tianwen-­1 mis-
one or more of the challenges of landing, mobility (such as driving, sion deployed the Zhurong rover in 2021, which explored Mars for
hopping, or flying), and, in some cases, excavation, sampling, and sam- 1 year. The European Space Agency (ESA) EXOMARS mission has
ple handling and analysis. Here, we focus on such missions, leaving the been delayed several times, most recently because of the complica-
immense diversity of orbital and flyby missions to other articles. tions of using a Russian launch vehicle and delivery system, and is
The pace of robotic surface missions has continued or even ac- now scheduled for a 2028 launch. In addition, the NASA-­ESA Mars
celerated (see Table 1). Earth’s Moon is rapidly becoming the staging Sample Return campaign is in development despite recent challeng-
ground for a growing set of spacefaring entities (see Table 2). In es (discussed later in the paper). Other than Mars, the OSIRIS-­REx
2017, we reviewed the state of space robotics (2), and in the past mission recently returned samples from the asteroid Bennu to Earth
7 years, a number of lunar missions have flown. The Chinese National on 24 September 2023, and, looking to the future, the Dragonfly
Space Administration (CNSA), building on the success of the 2013 mission, which will deploy a rotocraft to Saturn’s moon Titan, is
Chang’e 3 rover, landed the Chang’e 4 rover in 2019 and, with the scheduled to launch in July 2028.
Chang’e 5 mission, returned a lunar sample to Earth in December In the remainder of this article, we first discuss landed robotics
missions to the Moon, providing an overview of recent lunar mis-
1
sions as well as missions planned in the near future. We then discuss
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, current and future missions to Mars. Last, we discuss other deep
USA. 2European Space Research and Technology Centre, European Space Agency,
Noordwijk, Netherlands. space robotic missions and the ongoing research efforts toward en-
*Corresponding author. Email: steve.​a.​chien@​jpl.​nasa.​gov abling future space robotic capabilities.

Chien et al., Sci. Robot. 9, eadi6424 (2024) 19 June 2024 1 of 13

S c i e n c e R o b o t i cs | R e v i e w

Table 1. Lander, rover, aerial, and sampling missions operational and planned in 2017 versus 2024. → indicates a delayed mission.
2017 Survey period 2024 Survey period
Mission destination In operations 2017–2024 In operations/completed 2024–2029

Moon Chang’e 4, Chang’e 5, Chan- Chandrayaan 3, Chang’e 4, CLPS (numerous landers and
drayaan 2, SLIM Peregrine 1 (failed to land), rovers), Chang’e 6, Luna 25,
IM-­1 Odysseus (completed), SLIM, LUPEX
Mars Curiosity InSight, Perseverance (and Curiosity, Perseverance, ExoMars, MSR (+ SRH)
Ingenuity), Tianwen-­1, and Ingenuity (completed)
Zhurong → ExoMars
Other outer space OSIRIS-­REx OSIRIS-­REx (sample returned Dragonfly (launch no earlier
2023) than 2028; Titan arrival mid-­
2030s)

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Tsinghua University on September 06, 2024

Table 2. Lunar missions 2024 to 2032.
Name Operator Launch time frame Reference

Peregrine M1 Lunar Lander* Astrobotic 8 January 2024 (109)

IM-­1 Odysseus* Intuitive Machines 15 February 2024 (110)
Masten Mission 1 (Xelene Lander)/ Masten Space Systems/Carnegie-­ Previously November 2023 → de- (111–114)
MoonRanger Mellon University and Astrobotic layed
Chang’e 6 CNSA May 2024 (10)
IM-­2 PRIME-­1* Intuitive Machines Late 2024 (115)
Griffin M1*/VIPER Rover Astrobotic/NASA Late 2024 (116–118)
Blue Ghost M1* Firefly Aerospace 2024 (119)
IM-­3 PRISM*/CADRE Intuitive Machines/NASA Jet Propul- 2025 (120, 121)
sion Laboratory
LUPEX JAXA and ISRO 2025 (7)
Blue Ghost M2* Firefly Aerospace 2025–2026 (122)
Draper (APEX 1.0) Lunar Lander* Draper Laboratories/iSPACE 2026 (123)
CSA Rover CSA 2026 (124)
Chang’e 7 CNSA 2026 (11)
In situ solar system polar Ice Roving NASA 2030 (125)
Explorer (INSPIRE)
Intrepid NASA 2030 (126)
Endurance NASA 2030 (60)
KARI Lander KARI 2032 (127)

*CLPS initiative.

SPACE ROBOTICS MISSIONS TO THE MOON on solar power, then the landed system must generate and store suf-
After a pause of decades, the pace of robotic missions to Earth’s ficient energy (e.g., batteries) for survival heating for the lunar night,
Moon has picked up considerably (4). We first recap lunar robotic which lasts more than 12 Earth days. Even using a radioisotope
exploration in the 2017 to 2024 period then discuss future lunar thermoelectric generator, energy generation must cover consider-
missions in development for a 2024 to 2029 launch. In the period able survival heating needs in the extreme lunar cold. Because of the
from 2019 to March 2024, nine lunar missions were launched (four challenges of the extended lunar night, most lunar missions are re-
ended in failure), with an additional four planned for later in 2024 stricted to the sunlit portion of a single lunar day. Beyond Earth’s
and at least 10 in 2025 and beyond (see Fig. 1 and Table 2). magnetic field, lunar missions are subject to considerable radiation.
Missions to the Moon face a number of robotic challenges. Be- Last, rover missions face challenges in mobility in the lunar regolith
cause the lunar day is more than 27 days long, daily temperature and dust. Despite these numerous challenges, lunar missions are oc-
ranges are quite extreme. At the lunar equator, peak day tempera- curring with increasing frequency and success, as we describe later
tures reach 120°C, with night temperatures as low as −130°C. If relying in this paper.

Chien et al., Sci. Robot. 9, eadi6424 (2024) 19 June 2024 2 of 13

 S c i e n c e R o b o t i cs | R e v i e w

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Tsinghua University on September 06, 2024

Fig. 1. Lunar landers. (Left) Nova-­C lander. (Top right) Peregrine lander. (Bottom right) Masten Xelene 1 lander.

Lunar missions from 2017 to 2024 The CNSA Chang’e 5 (9) robotic lunar mission operated from
ISRO sent the Chandrayaan 2 mission (5) to the Moon in 2019, November to December 2020, concluding with the successful landing
but it failed to safely land. The Chandrayaan 3 (6) mission, which of its Earth reentry probe in northern China, carrying ~1.7 kg of lunar
includes a lander and rover, successfully landed on the Moon on regolith from the Moon, the first return to Earth of lunar samples
23 August 2023 and deployed the Vikram rover on 24 August, al- since the NASA Apollo era. Chang’e 5 landed near Mons Ruemker, a
though efforts to reestablish communication with both the lander volcanic formation located in the Oceanus Procellarum mare at the
and rover after they entered sleep mode on 4 September 2024 western edge of the Moon’s near side. The lander acquired about 500 g
have been unsuccessful. The Chandrayaan 3 lander carried a of underground samples using a drill and about 1.5 kg of surface rego-
probe that could be inserted 10 cm into the lunar soil to measure lith using a scoop-­equipped mechanical arm. The samples were deliv-
thermal conductivity and temperature. The lander also had a seis- ered in a sealed vessel within the ascent vehicle and subsequently
micity instrument and a Langmuir probe for plasma density mea- returned to Earth.
surements. The 26-­kg Chandrayaan 3 Vikram rover carried an As with Chang’e 3 and 4, CNSA will use the flight spare of Chang’e
x-­ray spectrometer and a laser-­induced breakdown spectrometer. 5 to implement the Chang’e 6 mission (10), which is currently ex-
The Chandrayaan 4/Lunar Polar Exploration Mission (LUPEX), pected to launch in May 2024. Chang’e 6 will also bring back about
CREDITS: INTUITIVE MACHINES (LEFT), ASTROBOTIC (TOP RIGHT), MASTEN SYSTEMS (BOTTOM RIGHT)

in collaboration with JAXA, builds on the successful Chandray- 2 kg of samples from the Moon; however, the landing site has yet to
aan 3 mission (7). be disclosed, although two options have been quoted by senior Chinese
In January 2019, CNSA’s Chang’e 4 (8) landed in the Moon’s Von scientists as being “somewhere on the far side of the Moon or a place
Kármán crater, located at the South Pole–Aitken basin. The basin is at the south pole.” CNSA also plans to launch the Chang’e 7 mission
about 13 km deep, and it is thought to have been created by a mas- (11) in 2026, which will consist of a relay satellite with two science
sive impactor that likely exposed the deep lunar crust and possibly payloads, an orbiter with five science instruments, a lander with
the mantle. Chang’e 4 is the first mission landing at the far side of seven science payloads, a rover with four science payloads, and a
the Moon. small flying probe with one science payload. The lander is intended
The Chang’e 4 lander deployed the Yutu-­2 rover (see Fig. 2) to the to land somewhere near the lunar south pole.
lunar surface using the same “lift” ramp technology used for Yutu-­1. Further lunar missions are planned by other countries. Japan’s
Yutu-­2 was designed for a nominal lifetime of 3 months. The rover iSPACE attempted the first Japanese soft landing mission to the
can survive lunar nights using radioisotope heating units developed moon in April 2023 with the SORA-­Q lander as part of the Hakuto-
through a Chinese-­Russian collaboration. Yutu-­2 has far exceeded ­R Mission 1 (12). Unfortunately, communications with SORA-­Q
its nominal lifetime given that it is still roaming the lunar surface as ended before touchdown, and SORA-­Q is presumed lost. However,
of March 2024, making it the longest-­operating lunar rover to date. SORA-­Q was launched again on SLIM (3) in 2023, renamed Lunar
The Yutu-­2 scientific payload included a panoramic camera installed Excursion Vehicle 2 (LEV-­2), and was successfully deployed and op-
on top of the rover’s mast with a spectral range of 420 to 700 nm erated after landing in January 2024. Luna 25 (13) is a Roscosmos
capable of stereoimages; a ground-­penetrating radar providing 30-­cm lunar lander that launched on 10 August 2023 but crashed on the
vertical resolution up to 30 m and 10-­m vertical resolution at depths Moon’s surface after a failed orbital maneuver. Luna 25 was intended
of more than 100 m; a visible and near-­infrared (IR) imaging spec- to study lunar regolith and lunar polar exosphere plasma and dust.
trometer; and an energetic neutral atom analyzer, allowing the study Luna 25 carried a 1.6-­m-­long, four–degree of freedom arm, scoop,
of solar wind on the lunar surface. and sample acquisition tool.

Chien et al., Sci. Robot. 9, eadi6424 (2024) 19 June 2024 3 of 13

 S c i e n c e R o b o t i cs | R e v i e w

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Tsinghua University on September 06, 2024

CREDITS: NASA AMES (TOP LEFT), DLR (TOP RIGHT), CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY ROBOTICS INSTITUTE (MIDDLE), CNSA (BOTTOM LEFT), NASA/JPL-­CALTECH (TOP RIGHT)

Fig. 2. Lunar and Mars rovers. (Top left) The VIPER (Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover) rover that will search for lunar ice. (Top right) Artistic depiction of the
MMX rover on the martian moon Phobos. (Middle) MoonRanger rover depicted on the lunar surface. (Bottom left) Yutu-­2 rover as seen by the Chang’e 4 lander.
(Bottom right) Cooperative Autonomous Distributed Robotic Exploration (CADRE) Engineering Prototype Rovers.

Lunar missions 2024 to 2032 ensuring sufficient energy generation to support survival heating.
Between NASA’s CLPS program (14) and other agency missions, nu- Effectively commanding surface missions on Mars also presents
merous lunar missions are planned over the next decade. considerable challenges. Typically, Mars surface missions have one
uplink-­downlink command cycle per sol (martian day) but, in some
cases, may use one command cycle for up to 3 sols. In addition, con-
SPACE ROBOTICS MISSIONS TO MARS junction (when Earth-­Mars communication is extremely limited by
Missions to Mars remain the primary destination for missions be- the interposition of the Sun) lasts ~2 weeks and substantially reduc-
yond the Earth-­Moon system. In recent years, robust exploration es Earth-­Mars communications. Because of this communications
has continued to the red planet, with multiple lander and rover mis- challenge, Mars surface missions operate fully autonomously be-
sions returning tremendous science with buildup to the return of tween these roughly daily contacts. Last, mobility on Mars presents
samples from Mars. considerable challenges, with a wide range of topography as well as
Missions to Mars face numerous robotic challenges. As noted loose material with potential for high slippage.
previously, more than half of the missions to Mars have failed. First, NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Curiosity rover (15)
the average distance from Earth to Mars is 140 million miles. Every landed on Mars on 5 August 2012 using the “skycrane” system.
780 days, there is a launch opportunity that results in an ~7-­month Since then, Curiosity has operated for 4126 sols (as of 15 March
Earth-­Mars cruise. Upon arrival at Mars, entry, descent, and landing 2024), traveling more than 31 km and acquiring more than a mil-
(EDL) presents unique challenges. The Mars atmosphere is too dense lion images (see Fig. 3). MSL has 10 instruments: Mastcam (mast
for retro-­rockets such as those used for lunar landing yet too thin for camera), MAHLI (Mars Hand Lens Imager), MARDI (Mars De-
a parachute recovery such as used on Earth. Last, the Earth-­Mars scent Imager), APXS (alpha x-­ray spectrometer), ChemCam
distance means that EDL must be fully autonomous. Once landed, (Chemistry and Camera), CheMin (chemistry and mineralogy x-­
landers and rovers experience extreme temperature ranges. A sum- ray diffraction/x-­ray fluorescence instrument), SAM (Sample
mer day near the equator on Mars might range from 20°C at noon Analysis at Mars Instrument Suite), RAD (radiation assessment
but plummet to −73°C at night. Because a martian year is 687 days, detector), DAN (Dynamic Albedo of Neutrons), and REMS (Rover
the martian winter may cause many months of colder tempera- Environment Monitoring Station). MSL has made numerous major
tures and reduced sunlight. Thermal challenges of surviving the science discoveries (16), including that Gale crater was potentially
martian night and martian winter present tremendous difficulty, as does habitable, Gale crater contained lakes for an extremely long period

Chien et al., Sci. Robot. 9, eadi6424 (2024) 19 June 2024 4 of 13

 S c i e n c e R o b o t i cs | R e v i e w

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Tsinghua University on September 06, 2024

Fig. 3. Mars surface missions. (Top left) Sol 3462 Curiosity’s view of sulfate-­bearing region and streambed rocks captured using its Mastcam on 2 May 2022; dark boulders seen
near the center are thought to have formed from sand deposited in ancient streams or ponds. (Middle left) Sol 1436 NASA’s InSight Mars lander acquired this image of the area
in front of the lander using its lander-­mounted instrument context camera on 11 December 2022. (Bottom left) Image of the Tianwen lander and Zhurong rover as taken by a
small wireless color camera that was placed by Zhurong on the surface of Mars. (Right) Sol 46 NASA’s Perseverance Mars rover took a selfie with the Ingenuity helicopter, seen
here about 13 feet (3.9 m) from the rover in this image taken 6 April 2021, by the WATSON (Wide Angle Topographic Sensor for Operations and eNgineering) camera on the
SHERLOC instrument, located at the end of the rover’s long robotic arm.

(millions of years), Gale crater has a diversity of organic matter, and experiment), MEDA (Mars Environmental Dynamics Analyzer; an
unexplained methane spikes are occurring on Mars. Measurements atmospheric package), and RIMFAX (Radar Imager for Mars’ Sub-
have also increased our understanding of the timing of martian at- surface Experiment; a ground-­penetrating radar). Mars 2020 has
mospheric loss. already made a number of scientific findings, including the discov-
NASA’s InSight mission (17) landed on Mars 26 November 2018 ery of volcanic materials at Jezero (27)—some later altered by liquid
to study Mars’ interior structure (see Fig. 3). InSight had three pri- water (28, 29)—and ancient organic geochemistry (30).
CREDITS: NASA/JPL-­CALTECH/MSS (TOP LEFT, RIGHT), NASA/JPL-­CALTECH (MIDDLE LEFT), CNSA (BOTTOM LEFT)

mary instruments: SEIS (Seismic Experiment for Interior Struc- In addition, Perseverance plays a key role in the planned NASA-­
ture), a seismic instrument; HP3 (Heat Flow and Physical Properties ESA campaign to return martian samples to Earth. As of March
Package), a burrowing instrument to measure heat flow from the 2024, the Perseverance rover had acquired 23 samples, 9 of which
interior of Mars; and RISE (Rotation and Interior Structure Experi- had been left at the Three Forks cache (see Fig. 3) (31). As of 15 March
ment), a radioscience instrument to measure changes in Mars’ mag- 2024, the Perseverance rover had 15 remaining sample tubes and
netic field. InSight operated for 709 sols, collecting a priceless trove two remaining witness tubes. The Mars Sample Return mission is
of data on Mars’ interior (18). Major science discoveries from In- discussed below in the “Future Mars missions” section.
Sight include the detection of marsquakes (19); the thicknesses of Ingenuity is a 1.8-­kg solar-­powered helicopter with a height of
Mars’ crust, mantle, and core (20, 21); the detection of meteor strikes 0.49 m and a rotor span of 1.2 m (see Fig. 3) (32, 33). Ingenuity be-
and exposed water ice (with Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) (22); came the first robotic powered flight on another planet on 19 April
measurements of Mars’ magnetic field (23); and atmospheric mea- 2021. This is truly an accomplishment because the martian atmo-
surements of Mars (24). sphere is less than 1% as dense as Earth’s atmosphere. Ingenuity
The Mars 2020 Perseverance Rover (25, 26) successfully landed at completed 72 flights, flying a distance of more than 17.0 km and
Jezero crater on Mars using the skycrane on 18 February 2021. Since taking more than 128 min of flight time before mission completion
then, it has operated for more than 1091 sols on Mars, traveling more on 25 January 2024. Ingenuity used many commercial parts, includ-
than 24 km and collecting 23 rock samples and more than 633,000 ing the Snapdragon 801 processor, the Linux operating system, an
images (as of 15 March 2024). The Perseverance rover has seven in- inertial measurement unit, an inclinometer, a light detection and
struments, including Mastcam-­Z (an advanced camera system), Su- ranging altimeter, a navigation camera, and lithium ion batteries. In
percam (a laser-­induced breakdown spectrometer), PIXL (Planetary addition to providing aerial imagery to assist in planning traverses
Instrument for X-­ray Lithochemistry; an x-­ray fluorescence spec- of the Perseverance rover, imaging of the dust disturbed by the Inge-
trometer and high-­resolution imager), SHERLOC (Scanning Habit- nuity helicopter has also enabled measurement of dust composition
able Environments with Raman and Luminescence for Organics and and particle size (34).
Chemicals; an ultraviolet Raman spectrometer), MOXIE (Mars Ox- The Chinese Tianwen-­1 mission (35) consists of an orbiter, a
ygen In Situ Resource Utilization Experiment; an oxygen generation lander, and a rover named Zhurong. After successfully landing on

Chien et al., Sci. Robot. 9, eadi6424 (2024) 19 June 2024 5 of 13

S c i e n c e R o b o t i cs | R e v i e w

Table 3. Progress of rovers deployed on Mars so far.

Rover Agency Year landed Rover mass Mission duration Distance traveled

Sojourner NASA 1997 11.5 kg 83 sols 100 m

MER—Spirit NASA 2004 185 kg 2208 sols 7730 m
MER—Opportunity NASA 2004 185 kg 5352 sols 45,160 m
MSL—Curiosity NASA 2012* 1025 kg 4200 sols (as of 4 June 31,990 m
2024)
Zhurong CNSA 2021 240 kg 347 sols 1921 m
M2020—Perseverance NASA 2021* 1025 kg 1168 sols (as of 4 June 26,550 m
2024)

*Currently operational on Mars as of April 2024.

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Tsinghua University on September 06, 2024

Mars, the Zhurong rover began operations on 22 May 2021. Zhurong the Jezero crater. In the primary plan, the Perseverance rover deliv-
carried several science instruments, including a navigation and ers samples to the SRL. If Perseverance is unable to deliver the sam-
topography camera used for the construction of topographic ples, then two Sample Recovery Helicopters would serve as backup,
maps; a ground-­penetrating radar to characterize surface layering; fetching samples from the Three Forks cache and delivering them to
a magnetometer to measure spatial distribution of crustal mag- the SRL. From the SRL, the Mars Ascent Vehicle would carry the
netic field; IR and laser-­i nduced breakdown spectrometers and samples to the ESA Earth Return Orbiter, which would return the
multispectral camera for elemental analysis; and a meteorological samples to Earth by the mid-­2030s. However, because of budgetary
station capable of measuring temperature, pressure, wind velocity, concerns (40), the MSR campaign is being redesigned (41).
and direction of the surface atmosphere with a microphone to cap- The JAXA Martian Moons eXploration (MMX) mission [part-
ture martian sounds. Zhurong was powered by solar panels and nered with Centre National D’Etudes Spatiales (CNES) and
operated for 347 sols before the mission was ended by the mar- Deutsches Zentrum für Luft-­und Raumfahrt (DLR)] will investi-
tian winter (see Fig. 3). Interestingly, Zhurong found evidence of gate the evolution of the martian moons Phobos and Deimos (42).
liquid water in recent martian history (36). Zhurong has been sta- Two theories of their evolution exist: They are either the result of a
tionary since 20 May 2022 and is presumed nonoperational. Mars giant impact or asteroids captured in Mars’ orbit. MMX is currently
rovers have now been deployed by NASA and CNSA with steadily scheduled to launch in November 2026 and arrive at Mars roughly
increasing mass (and capability), lifetime, and mobility, as shown 1 year later (43). MMX consists of three separate modules: a propul-
in Table 3. sion module, a robotic probe, a CNES-­DLR microrover (see Fig. 2)
(44), and the return vehicle. The probe will survey Phobos and
Future Mars missions deposit the microrover to the surface and acquire 10 g of samples.
The ExoMars Rover Surface Platform (EXM-­RSP) mission (37) The probe will execute a series of flybys of the smaller moon, Deimos.
was prepared by ESA in cooperation with Roscosmos and contribu- It will then release a third module that will return the samples to
tions from NASA for launch in 2022 (with successful qualifica- Earth in 2031. MMX hosts eight scientific instruments to map and
tion and acceptance review passed in March 2022) when cooperation characterize the moons’ surfaces at high resolution to determine
with Roscosmos was stopped after the Ukrainian crisis. Subse- their chemical and mineralogical makeup as well as to observe
quently, the ExoMars program was replanned for a 2028 launch storms and clouds on Mars. The MMX microrover is being designed
with modified NASA participation. The renamed ExoMars Rosa- and built as a joint effort. DLR will be responsible for developing the
lind Franklin Mission (EXM-­RFM) targets the same landing site, rover’s structure, its locomotion system, and a spectrometer and a
Oxia Planum. radiometer that will be used to determine both the characteristics
The EXOMARS rover scientific payload, named Pasteur, is de- and composition of the surface. CNES will provide the camera sys-
signed to search for biosignatures. Pasteur contains cameras, an IR tems for navigation of the surface as well as the rover’s central ser-
spectrometer, and a ground-­penetrating radar; contact instruments vice module. Upon landing, the rover will be operated jointly by
for studying rocks and collected samples (a close-­up imager and CNES and DLR.
an IR spectrometer in the drill head); a subsurface drill capable of
reaching a depth of 2 m and obtaining specimens from bedrock; a
sample preparation and distribution system; and an analytical labo- FURTHER DEEP SPACE ROBOTICS MISSIONS
ratory, the latter including a visual and IR imaging spectrometer, a Additional deep space robotics missions are in operations and de-
Raman spectrometer, and a laser desorption, thermal volatilization velopment. The OSIRIS-­REx mission (45) launched in 2016 and ar-
gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer. rived at the asteroid Bennu in 2018. It executed its touch-­and-­go
The NASA-­ESA Sample Return campaign plans to return mar- sample acquisition on 20 October 2020 and returned the sample to
tian samples to Earth for analysis; we describe the 2023 baseline. Earth on 24 September 2023. The mission has already performed
First, the Perseverance rover collects samples (38, 39). Nine sample substantial scientific study of Bennu (46, 47).
tubes have already been stored at the Three Forks cache. The Sample The Dragonfly mission (48, 49) to Titan, a moon of Saturn, il-
Return Lander (SRL) would launch no earlier than 2028 and land in lustrates the growing reach of aerial exploration beyond Earth and

Chien et al., Sci. Robot. 9, eadi6424 (2024) 19 June 2024 6 of 13

 S c i e n c e R o b o t i cs | R e v i e w

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Tsinghua University on September 06, 2024

Fig. 4. This illustration shows NASA’s Dragonfly rotorcraft lander approaching a site on Saturn’s exotic moon, Titan.

Mars. Dragonfly (see Fig. 4) takes advantage of Titan’s atmosphere space robotics in the future as the scale, frequency, and complexity
being four times denser than Earth’s and Titan’s gravity being only of space development grow, including space stations, space-­based
one-­seventh that of Earth’s gravity. Dragonfly is a rotocraft lander power stations, large space telescopes, and more.
that will explore dozens of locations, sampling and analyzing Titan’s However, such future missions present incredibly complex chal-
organic surface materials to study Titan’s habitability and prebiotic lenges that will require advanced robotic capabilities to be success-
chemistry. Dragonfly has a planned launch date in 2028 and a ful. Here, we discuss recent and proposed advances in four key
planned arrival at Titan in the mid-­2030s. fields of space robotics that are essential in supporting the future
After the NASA Europa Clipper (50) and ESA JUpiter ICy Moons capabilities of space robotics: mobility, manipulation, sensing, and
Explorer (JUICE) (51) missions, a Europa Lander mission concept system-­level autonomy. Mobility fundamentally drives the scope of
to sample and analyze surface materials for astrobiology signatures conditions and environments that a space robot can operate in. Ma-
has been studied (52, 53). A multiyear effort to develop this mission nipulation dictates the breadth of objects or phenomena that a space
concept included development of a hardware and software proto- robot can interact with. Sensing controls the fidelity of what a robot
type (54, 55) to inform the high degree of autonomy required for can perceive and transmit to Earth to be used in the performance of
such a mission because of the limited mission duration, complex fundamental science. Finally, system-­level autonomy will be the key
science, and challenging interaction with an unknown and unpre- driver in enabling more ambitious missions that are in more distant
dictable surface environment. Considerable testing in software sim- and challenging parts of space where ground involvement becomes
ulation demonstrated system-­level autonomy for various scientific increasingly less feasible.
discoveries and variations in energy availability and consumption
and robotic execution. This effort culminated in a successful hard- Mobility
ware and software demonstration on the Matanuska Glacier in Alaska, Improving the mobility capabilities of future space robots is vitally
United States, in July 2022 to August 2022 (see Fig. 5). important to enable the success of future space missions. Exam-
Further afield, ocean worlds present unique opportunities to ples of this are the Endurance (60) and EELS (56) missions, which
search for life within our Solar System. The Exobiology Extant Life demand advanced mobility capabilities to maximize their science
Surveyor (EELS) (56) is a snake-­like robot designed to investigate returns. Recently, numerous robot designs for improved space mo-
plume-­producing crevasses on Enceladus, an icy moon of Saturn bility have been proposed to address the technical mobility chal-
described in a prior issue of Science Robotics. lenges faced in space robotics for in-­space assembly and other tasks
such as extraterrestrial exploration. Parness et al. (61) proposed a
four-­limbed robot, LEMUR 3, capable of climbing on cliffs using
FUTURE CAPABILITIES microspine grippers and on smooth glass using gecko adhesive end
The unique nature of space as an environment and the unique chal- effectors. The intention was to demonstrate the capability of the
lenges it poses have spurred efforts across multiple fields of study in LEMUR 3 robot in effective mobility within a martian or lunar
the area of space robotics. In addition to the promising future mis- cave–like setting and a space station–like setting. The authors high-
sions detailed thus far in this paper, there are several key develop- lighted the benefits of limbed space robots for mobility, namely, the
CREDIT: NASA/JHU-­APL

ment trends for space robotics that highlight the need for further lack of an expendable resource like propellant that would be used
work in the area: space station applications such as maintenance and for a hopping or flying robot and the assurance of staying connected
assistive tasks, in-­space or on-­orbit maintenance, in-­space or on-­ to their intended surface. However, as further noted, such limbed
orbit assembly of space structures (57, 58), and space debris remov- robots also face additional technical complexity and, consequently,
al systems (59). These may hold some of the key responsibilities of potential for fault or failure.

Chien et al., Sci. Robot. 9, eadi6424 (2024) 19 June 2024 7 of 13

 S c i e n c e R o b o t i cs | R e v i e w

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Tsinghua University on September 06, 2024

Fig. 5. The Europa Lander Field Sampling Campaign (ELFS Camp) system on Matanuska Glacier, Alaska, United States. A combined hardware and software proto-
type demonstrated autonomous sampling in a range of physical conditions.

Jin et al. (62) introduced a Cartesian trajectory planning (CTP) robots, both autonomous and teleoperated, because the manipulation
algorithm for a six–degree of freedom, free-­floating space robot that capability of a space robot is an essential component of many orbital
combines damped least squares and feedback compensation to missions in which a space robot may operate. A pressing example of
avoid dynamic singularities that arise in CTP when the generalized these challenges is exhibited by the ambitious Mars Sample Return
Jacobian matrix is not invertible. The authors formulated the trajec- campaign (38) to retrieve martian surface samples, discussed earlier
tory planning problem as a multiobjective optimization problem in the paper. This campaign entails multiple complex manipulation
and used chaotic particle swarm optimization to solve it. Nair et al. problems from acquiring and depositing the samples into their
(63) introduced a seven–degree of freedom dexterous walking ro- storage containers, retrieving these samples and loading them into
botic system for in-­orbit assembly missions, such as the Large Aper- the Mars Sample Retrieval Lander, and lastly capturing the payload
ture Space Telescope, and demonstrated in simulation that the safely in space. For comprehensive reviews of the challenges faced in
proposed robotic system, the E-­Walker (end-­over-­end walking space robot manipulation, we refer the reader to the survey work
robot), has the capability to accomplish complex in situ assembly done by Papadopoulos et al. (72), Henshaw et al. (70), and Moghaddam
operations through task-­sharing. The authors’ optimized design and Chhabra (73).
analysis identified the E-­Walker as an ideal candidate for servicing, In orbit, the dynamic coupling between the manipulator and
maintenance, and assembly operations on the ground in addition to base of the robot imposes additional system constraints that, if left
maintenance, servicing, and assembly tasks in space. uncontrolled, can result in undesirable and unexpected changes in
For a complete review of the current state of the art in in-­space attitude and pose of the robot. Seddaoui and Saaj (66) attempted to
assembly, we direct the reader toward the survey work done by address these control challenges by proposing a combined nonlinear
Li et al. (58). Ribeiro et al. (64) proposed an approach for locomo- H∞ controller for both the manipulator control and the base control
tion in microgravity called reaction-­aware motion planning to de- to reduce failure. A recent work also investigated the disturbance of
crease the risk of losing contact with the terrain surface as a result of a space manipulator system due to accumulated angular momen-
momentum change. The proposed approach works by generating a tum of a rotating reaction wheel with the aim of designing a control-
swing motion for the leg with minimum motion reaction and then ler to compensate for the disturbances (74). Recently, Mishra et al.
performing an additional movement with the remaining degrees (75) exploited the inertia-­decoupled reduced Euler-­Lagrange equa-
of freedom to drive the main body, thereby distributing the total tions to avoid the need for joint acceleration measurements in regu-
generated motion reactions (the pulling or pushing actions of the lation tasks, in which a controller stabilizes the configuration of an
robot’s supporting grippers resulting from the robot’s movements). orbital robot about a set point, in the specific setting in which its
spacecraft velocity is unmeasured.
Manipulation The problem of space capture of free-­floating space objects has
Space robot manipulation is an incredibly complex control problem been of particular interest in the community in part because of its
affected by numerous sources of dynamic interference or influence application to the capture of free-­floating space debris. A recent
including joint clearance (65), dynamic coupling between manipu- line of work investigated the control of tethered space capture sys-
CREDIT: JPL/NASA

lator and base (66–68), tumbling motion of capture targets (69), the tems as a promising solution for active space debris removal (59,
fragility (and expensiveness) of capture targets (70), postimpact 76, 77), throughout which the authors investigated the control
dynamics (71), and more. Nevertheless, substantial attention has challenges that are exhibited by lightweight, tethered robotic sys-
been given to the challenging problem of manipulation of space tems and demonstrated in both physical and simulated systems the

Chien et al., Sci. Robot. 9, eadi6424 (2024) 19 June 2024 8 of 13

S c i e n c e R o b o t i cs | R e v i e w

potential of this architecture for space capture. Zhang et al. (67) (often system-­critical) processes and behaviors to an autonomous
provided a configuration optimization for a free-­floating space system is too risky because the breadth of scenarios the system
robot capturing model for a tumbling target to reduce the maxi- has to reason with is too numerous and complex. However, the
mal contact force from robot to target, a key variable in successful authors point out that this belief hinges on two assumptions that
target capture, and validated their approach on both a simulated may no longer hold true in all cases (the number of which are
three–degree of freedom and a seven–degree of freedom free-­ increasing): the ability of humans to predict outcomes to a rea-
floating space robot. More recently, Dou et al. (69) introduced a sonable degree and the availability of sufficient resources to en-
novel approach for probe-­cone docking space capture for an arbi- able a fully ground-­c ontrolled, or ground-­in-­t he-­loop, space
trary–degree of freedom arm, introducing a finite-­time parameter robot. These assumptions are being challenged by the increas-
identification algorithm for the inertial parameters of the capture ingly ambitious space missions that have been discussed thus far
target and a planning method for determining the shortest time in the paper.
trajectory. Several recent efforts have therefore been made toward the devel-
opment of system-­level autonomy for space robots. The ARCHES proj-
Sensing ect (103) developed a heterogeneous, autonomous, and interconnected
Space remote sensing has played an integral role in a number of ac- robotic system aimed at tackling key challenges facing future lunar
tivities, from agricultural monitoring to national security, urban and planetary exploration missions. Their team consisted of a com-

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Tsinghua University on September 06, 2024

planning, and more, and comprises numerous technologies. In their bination of flying and driving robots and static and mobile infra-
recent survey work, Zhang et al. (78) highlighted three key tech- structure elements (lander and multipurpose payload boxes). The
nologies central to intelligent remote sensing that are exhibiting project demonstrated that a fully decentralized and (largely) distrib-
rapid advances: remote sensing satellite platform technologies, in- uted computation campaign allows for efficient resource use and
cluding intersatellite and satellite-­to-­ground communication im- robustness to failures of individual agents. All components of all
provements (79, 80); image payload technologies (81–83); and onboard agents ran fully on board, enabling full onboard system-­level au-
processing system technologies (84, 85). In particular, a large em- tonomy, which is crucial in campaigns where communication may
phasis has been placed on the deployment of satellite constellations be delayed, unreliable, or unavailable.
to enable continuous, multiangle monitoring of targets around the More recently, several efforts (55, 104, 105) have been made
world (86). Numerous such constellations have already been devel- toward the proposed Europa Lander mission concept (53). Europa
oped or deployed already, including RapidEye (87), RADARSAT provides a front for development of system-­level autonomy for
(88), BlackSky (89), WorldView-­2 (90), CHEOS (91), Beijing-­2 (92, space robotics because of the numerous mission challenges it would
93), and Jilin-­1 (94, 95). face, including severe thermal and (nonrepletable) energy con-
However, although satellite constellations provide numerous bene- straints, severely limited communication, and an unprecedented
fits, they present a new set of technical challenges. Ben-­Larbi et al. level of a priori environmental/domain uncertainty. Of greatest rel-
(96) provided an analysis of the transition to large-­scale smallsat evance, and recency, is the work by Wagner et al. (55), who created
constellations in the context of three use case examples—RapidEye, an autonomy software prototype for system-­level autonomy in the
SkySat, and Doves—highlighting seven key areas of stress in the scal- proposed Europa lander mission concept and demonstrated across
ability of such large-­scale constellations: resource allocation (plan- a wide variety of realistic mission scenarios the viability of onboard
ning and scheduling); satellite design, manufacturing, and launch; system-­level autonomy.
commissioning; operational anomaly detection and handling; soft- Modular robotic systems is a separate active area of research
ware and configuration; orbit management and collision avoidance; aiming to tackle challenges exposed by system-­level autonomy, such
and calibration/validation. Last, although traditionally limited by the as efficient system modification, rapid adaptation of capabilities and
extent of computing capabilities onboard sensing satellites, machine atomic repurposing of hardware, flexible system operation, and in-
learning is becoming increasingly feasible with recent advances in creased system robustness (106), and it has been predicted to be a
onboard processing system technologies such as those noted earlier. key feature for the future of space robotics (107). Recently, Fei et al.
Use cases of machine learning for remote sensing have been well (108) proposed a genetic algorithm–based approach for optimal de-
explored in recent years, and we direct the reader to the extensive sign of modular robot topology and found that their approach could
survey work found in (97–101) for a more complete review of successfully enable a modular robot to execute tasks successfully
this topic. with as few modular units as possible.

System-­level autonomy
As described by Nesnas et al. (102), autonomous functionality in CONCLUSION
space robots primarily falls into one of two categories: functional In the interim period since our last review of space robotics, 2017
autonomy and system-­level autonomy. System-­level autonomy gen- to 2024, there has been an explosion in surface and aerial missions
erally reasons across domains, processes, and subsystems within a launched, under development, and in planning. Numerous mis-
single agent (including power, thermal, communication, guidance, sions to Earth’s Moon are scheduled in the coming years of 2024
navigation, control, mobility, and manipulation) and manages many to 2029. Additional missions have landed on Mars, and the ambi-
components of the system’s behavior, including system-­to-­ground tious NASA-­ESA Mars Sample return campaign is still in devel-
interactions, plans, schedules, the execution of system activities, and opment despite recent setbacks. Last, additional missions have
the health and safety of the robot in general, particularly in the con- recently been completed (OSIRIS-­REx) or are currently under de-
text of off-­nominal events or behavior. As Nesnas et al. (102) pointed velopment (Dragonfly). All of these demonstrate that space robot-
out, it is a long-­held belief in the community that entrusting these ics missions are thriving.

Chien et al., Sci. Robot. 9, eadi6424 (2024) 19 June 2024 9 of 13

S c i e n c e R o b o t i cs | R e v i e w

REFERENCES AND NOTES 21. A. Khan, S. Ceylan, M. van Driel, D. Giardini, P. Lognonné, H. Samuel, N. C. Schmerr,
1. Wikipedia, List of missions to Mars, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_ S. C. Stähler, A. C. Duran, Q. Huang, D. Kim, A. Broquet, C. Charalambous, J. F. Clinton,
Mars. P. M. Davis, M. Drilleau, F. Karakostas, V. Lekic, S. M. McLennan, R. R. Maguire, C. Michaut,
2. Y. Gao, S. Chien, Review on space robotics: Toward top-­level science through space M. P. Panning, W. T. Pike, B. Pinot, M. Plasman, J.-­R. Scholz, R. Widmer-­Schnidrig, T. Spohn,
exploration. Sci. Robot. 2, eaan5074 (2017). S. E. Smrekar, W. B. Banerdt, Upper mantle structure of Mars from InSight seismic data.
3. JAXA, Smart Lander for Investigating Moon (SLIM), https://global.jaxa.jp/projects/sas/ Science 373, 434–438 (2021).
slim/. 22. L. V. Posiolova, P. Lognonné, W. B. Banerdt, J. Clinton, G. S. Collins, T. Kawamura, S. Ceylan,
4. K. J. Kim, “Lunar exploration missions and environmental discovery: Status and I. J. Daubar, B. Fernando, M. Froment, D. Giardini, M. C. Malin, K. Miljković, S. C. Stähler,
progress” in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science (Oxford Univ. Press, Z. Xu, M. E. Banks, É. Beucler, B. A. Cantor, C. Charalambous, N. Dahmen, P. Davis,
2022). M. Drilleau, C. M. Dundas, C. Durán, F. Euchner, R. F. Garcia, M. Golombek, A. Horleston,
5. NASA, Chandrayaan 2, https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display. C. Keegan, A. Khan, D. Kim, C. Larmat, R. Lorenz, L. Margerin, S. Menina, M. Panning,
action?id=2019-­042A. C. Pardo, C. Perrin, W. T. Pike, M. Plasman, A. Rajšić, L. Rolland, E. Rougier, G. Speth,
6. NASA, Chandrayaan 3, https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display. A. Spiga, A. Stott, D. Susko, N. A. Teanby, A. Valeh, A. Werynski, N. Wójcicka,
action?id=2023-­098A. G. Zenhäusern, Largest recent impact craters on Mars: Orbital imaging and surface
7. Y. Ishihara, T. Shimomura, R. Nishitani, M. Aida, H. Mizuno, JAXA’s mission instruments in seismic co-­investigation. Science 378, 412–417 (2022).
the ISRO-­JAXA joint lunar polar exploration (LUPEX) project—Overview and developing 23. C. L. Johnson, A. Mittelholz, B. Langlais, C. T. Russell, V. Ansan, D. Banfield, P. J. Chi,
status. LPI Contrib. 3040, 1761 (2024). M. O. Fillingim, F. Forget, H. F. Haviland, M. Golombek, S. Joy, P. Lognonné, X. Liu,
8. NASA, Chang’e 4, https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=2018-­ C. Michaut, L. Pan, C. Quantin-­Nataf, A. Spiga, S. Stanley, S. N. Thorne, M. A. Wieczorek,
103A. Y. Yu, S. E. Smrekar, W. B. Banerdt, Crustal and time-­varying magnetic fields at the InSight
9. NASA, Chang’e 5, https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=2020-­087A. landing site on Mars. Nat. Geosci. 13, 199–204 (2020).

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Tsinghua University on September 06, 2024

10. NASA, Chang’e 6, https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=CHANG-­ 24. D. Banfield, A. Spiga, C. Newman, F. Forget, M. Lemmon, R. Lorenz, N. Murdoch,
E-­6. D. Viudez-­Moreiras, J. Pla-­Garcia, R. F. Garcia, P. Lognonné, Ö. Karatekin, C. Perrin,
11. NASA, Chang’e 7, https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=CHANG-­ L. Martire, N. Teanby, B. Van Hove, J. N. Maki, B. Kenda, N. T. Mueller, S. Rodriguez,
E-­7. T. Kawamura, J. B. Mc Clean, A. E. Stott, C. Charalambous, E. Millour, C. L. Johnson,
12. NASA, Hakuto-­R M1, https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display. A. Mittelholz, A. Määttänen, S. R. Lewis, J. Clinton, S. C. Stähler, S. Ceylan, D. Giardini,
action?id=2022-­168A. T. Warren, W. T. Pike, I. Daubar, M. Golombek, L. Rolland, R. Widmer-­Schnidrig, D. Mimoun,
13. NASA, Luna 25—Spacecraft, https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display. É. Beucler, A. Jacob, A. Lucas, M. Baker, V. Ansan, K. Hurst, L. Mora-­Sotomayor, S. Navarro,
action?id=2023-­118A. J. Torres, A. Lepinette, A. Molina, M. Marin-­Jimenez, J. Gomez-­Elvira, V. Peinado,
14. A. Witze, Private companies are flocking to the Moon—What does that mean for science? J.-­A. Rodriguez-­Manfredi, B. T. Carcich, S. Sackett, C. T. Russell, T. Spohn, S. E. Smrekar,
Nature 616, 426–427 (2023). W. B. Banerdt, The atmosphere of Mars as observed by InSight. Nat. Geosci. 13, 190–198
15. NASA, Curiosity Rover Mission Overview, https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/ (2020).
overview/. 25. K. H. Williford, K. A. Farley, K. M. Stack, A. C. Allwood, D. Beaty, L. W. Beegle, R. Bhartia,
16. A. R. Vasavada, Mission overview and scientific contributions from the Mars Science A. J. Brown, M. de la Torre Juarez, S.-­E. Hamran, M. H. Hecht, J. A. Hurowitz,
Laboratory Curiosity rover after eight years of surface operations. Space Sci. Rev. 218, 14 J. A. Rodriguez-­Manfredi, S. Maurice, S. Milkovich, R. C. Wiens, "The NASA Mars 2020
(2022). rover mission and the search for extraterrestrial life" in From Habitability to Life on Mars
17. NASA, Overview | Mission—NASA’s InSight Mars Lander, https://mars.nasa.gov/insight/ (Elsevier, 2018), pp. 275–308.
mission/overview/. 26. K. A. Farley, K. H. Williford, K. M. Stack, R. Bhartia, A. Chen, M. de la Torre, K. Hand,
18. W. B. Banerdt, S. E. Smrekar, D. Banfield, D. Giardini, M. Golombek, C. L. Johnson, Y. Goreva, C. D. K. Herd, R. Hueso, Y. Liu, J. N. Maki, G. Martinez, R. C. Moeller, A. Nelessen,
P. Lognonné, A. Spiga, T. Spohn, C. Perrin, S. C. Stähler, D. Antonangeli, S. Asmar, C. E. Newman, D. Nunes, A. Ponce, N. Spanovich, P. A. Willis, L. W. Beegle, J. F. Bell,
C. Beghein, N. Bowles, E. Bozdag, P. Chi, U. Christensen, J. Clinton, G. S. Collins, I. Daubar, A. J. Brown, S. E. Hamran, J. A. Hurowitz, S. Maurice, D. A. Paige, J. A. Rodriguez-­Manfredi,
V. Dehant, M. Drilleau, M. Fillingim, W. Folkner, R. F. Garcia, J. Garvin, J. Grant, M. Grott, M. Schulte, R. C. Wiens, Mars 2020 mission overview. Space Sci. Rev. 216, 1–41 (2020).
J. Grygorczuk, T. Hudson, J. C. E. Irving, G. Kargl, T. Kawamura, S. Kedar, S. King, 27. J. R. Hollis, K. R. Moore, S. Sharma, L. Beegle, J. P. Grotzinger, A. Allwood, W. Abbey,
B. Knapmeyer-­Endrun, M. Knapmeyer, M. Lemmon, R. Lorenz, J. N. Maki, L. Margerin, R. Bhartia, A. J. Brown, B. Clark, E. Cloutis, A. Corpolongo, J. Henneke, K. Hickman-­Lewis,
S. M. McLennan, C. Michaut, D. Mimoun, A. Mittelholz, A. Mocquet, P. Morgan, J. A. Hurowitz, M. W. M. Jones, Y. Liu, J. Martinez-­Frías, A. Murphy, D. A. K. Pedersen,
N. T. Mueller, N. Murdoch, S. Nagihara, C. Newman, F. Nimmo, M. Panning, W. T. Pike, S. Shkolyar, S. Siljeström, A. Steele, M. Tice, A. Treiman, K. Uckert, S. Van Bommel,
A.-­C. Plesa, S. Rodriguez, J. A. Rodriguez-­Manfredi, C. T. Russell, N. Schmerr, M. Siegler, A. Yanchilina, The power of paired proximity science observations: Co-­located data from
S. Stanley, E. Stutzmann, N. Teanby, J. Tromp, M. van Driel, N. Warner, R. Weber, SHERLOC and PIXL on Mars. Icarus 387, 115179 (2022).
M. Wieczorek, Initial results from the InSight mission on Mars. Nat. Geosci. 13, 183–189 28. Y. Liu, M. M. Tice, M. E. Schmidt, A. H. Treiman, T. V. Kizovski, J. A. Hurowitz, A. C. Allwood,
(2020). J. Henneke, D. A. K. Pedersen, S. J. Van Bommel, M. W. M. Jones, A. L. Knight,
19. S. Ceylan, J. F. Clinton, D. Giardini, S. C. Stähler, A. Horleston, T. Kawamura, M. Böse, B. J. Orenstein, B. C. Clark, W. T. Elam, C. M. Heirwegh, T. Barber, L. W. Beegle, K. Benzerara,
C. Charalambous, N. L. Dahmen, M. van Driel, C. Durán, F. Euchner, A. Khan, D. Kim, S. Bernard, O. Beyssac, T. Bosak, A. J. Brown, E. L. Cardarelli, D. C. Catling, J. R. Christian,
M. Plasman, J.-­R. Scholz, G. Zenhäusern, E. Beucler, R. F. Garcia, S. Kedar, W. B. Banerdt, The E. A. Cloutis, B. A. Cohen, S. Davidoff, A. G. Fairén, K. A. Farley, D. T. Flannery, A. Galvin,
marsquake catalogue from InSight, sols 0–1011. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 333, 106943 J. P. Grotzinger, S. Gupta, J. Hall, C. D. K. Herd, K. Hickman-­Lewis, R. P. Hodyss,
(2022). B. H. N. Horgan, J. R. Johnson, J. L. Jørgensen, L. C. Kah, J. N. Maki, L. Mandon, N. Mangold,
20. P. Lognonné, W. B. Banerdt, W. T. Pike, D. Giardini, U. Christensen, R. F. Garcia, F. M. McCubbin, S. M. McLennan, K. Moore, M. Nachon, P. Nemere, L. D. Nothdurft,
T. Kawamura, S. Kedar, B. Knapmeyer-­Endrun, L. Margerin, F. Nimmo, M. Panning, J. I. Núñez, L. O’Neil, C. M. Quantin-­Nataf, V. Sautter, D. L. Shuster, K. L. Siebach, J. I. Simon,
B. Tauzin, J.-­R. Scholz, D. Antonangeli, S. Barkaoui, E. Beucler, F. Bissig, N. Brinkman, K. P. Sinclair, K. M. Stack, A. Steele, J. D. Tarnas, N. J. Tosca, K. Uckert, A. Udry, L. A. Wade,
M. Calvet, S. Ceylan, C. Charalambous, P. Davis, M. van Driel, M. Drilleau, L. Fayon, R. Joshi, B. P. Weiss, R. C. Wiens, K. H. Williford, M.-­P. Zorzano, An olivine cumulate outcrop on the
B. Kenda, A. Khan, M. Knapmeyer, V. Lekic, J. McClean, D. Mimoun, N. Murdoch, L. Pan, floor of Jezero crater, Mars. Science 377, 1513–1519 (2022).
C. Perrin, B. Pinot, L. Pou, S. Menina, S. Rodriguez, C. Schmelzbach, N. Schmerr, 29. K. A. Farley, K. M. Stack, D. L. Shuster, B. H. N. Horgan, J. A. Hurowitz, J. D. Tarnas,
D. Sollberger, A. Spiga, S. Stähler, A. Stott, E. Stutzmann, S. Tharimena, J. I. Simon, V. Z. Sun, E. L. Scheller, K. R. Moore, S. M. McLennan, P. M. Vasconcelos,
R. Widmer-­Schnidrig, F. Andersson, V. Ansan, C. Beghein, M. Böse, E. Bozdag, J. Clinton, R. C. Wiens, A. H. Treiman, L. E. Mayhew, O. Beyssac, T. V. Kizovski, N. J. Tosca,
I. Daubar, P. Delage, N. Fuji, M. Golombek, M. Grott, A. Horleston, K. Hurst, J. Irving, K. H. Williford, L. S. Crumpler, L. W. Beegle, J. F. Bell III, B. L. Ehlmann, Y. Liu, J. N. Maki,
A. Jacob, J. Knollenberg, S. Krasner, C. Krause, R. Lorenz, C. Michaut, R. Myhill, M. E. Schmidt, A. C. Allwood, H. E. F. Amundsen, R. Bhartia, T. Bosak, A. J. Brown,
T. Nissen-­Meyer, J. ten Pierick, A.-­C. Plesa, C. Quantin-­Nataf, J. Robertsson, L. Rochas, B. C. Clark, A. Cousin, O. Forni, T. S. J. Gabriel, Y. Goreva, S. Gupta, S.-­E. Hamran,
M. Schimmel, S. Smrekar, T. Spohn, N. Teanby, J. Tromp, J. Vallade, N. Verdier, C. Vrettos, C. D. K. Herd, K. Hickman-­Lewis, J. R. Johnson, L. C. Kah, P. B. Kelemen, K. B. Kinch,
R. Weber, D. Banfield, E. Barrett, M. Bierwirth, S. Calcutt, N. Compaire, C. L. Johnson, L. Mandon, N. Mangold, C. Quantin-­Nataf, M. S. Rice, P. S. Russell, S. Sharma, S. Siljeström,
D. Mance, F. Euchner, L. Kerjean, G. Mainsant, A. Mocquet, J. A. Rodriguez Manfredi, A. Steele, R. Sullivan, M. Wadhwa, B. P. Weiss, A. J. Williams, B. V. Wogsland, P. A. Willis,
G. Pont, P. Laudet, T. Nebut, S. de Raucourt, O. Robert, C. T. Russell, A. Sylvestre-­Baron, T. A. Acosta-­Maeda, P. Beck, K. Benzerara, S. Bernard, A. S. Burton, E. L. Cardarelli, B. Chide,
S. Tillier, T. Warren, M. Wieczorek, C. Yana, P. Zweifel, Constraints on the shallow elastic E. Clavé, E. A. Cloutis, B. A. Cohen, A. D. Czaja, V. Debaille, E. Dehouck, A. G. Fairén,
and anelastic structure of Mars from InSight seismic data. Nat. Geosci. 13, 213–220 D. T. Flannery, S. Z. Fleron, T. Fouchet, J. Frydenvang, B. J. Garczynski, E. F. Gibbons,
(2020). E. M. Hausrath, A. G. Hayes, J. Henneke, J. L. Jørgensen, E. M. Kelly, J. Lasue, S. Le Mouélic,

Chien et al., Sci. Robot. 9, eadi6424 (2024) 19 June 2024 10 of 13

S c i e n c e R o b o t i cs | R e v i e w

J. M. Madariaga, S. Maurice, M. Merusi, P.-­Y. Meslin, S. M. Milkovich, C. C. Million, E. T. Morton, M. C. Nolan, B. Rizk, H. L. Roper, A. E. Bartels, B. J. Bos, J. P. Dworkin,
B. C. Moeller, J. I. Núñez, A. M. Ollila, G. Paar, D. A. Paige, D. A. K. Pedersen, P. Pilleri, D. E. Highsmith, D. A. Lorenz, L. F. Lim, R. Mink, M. C. Moreau, J. A. Nuth, D. C. Reuter,
C. Pilorget, P. C. Pinet, J. W. Rice Jr., C. Royer, V. Sautter, M. Schulte, M. A. Sephton, A. A. Simon, E. B. Bierhaus, B. H. Bryan, R. Ballouz, O. S. Barnouin, R. P. Binzel, W. F. Bottke,
S. K. Sharma, S. F. Sholes, N. Spanovich, M. St. Clair, C. D. Tate, K. Uckert, S. J. Vanbommel, V. E. Hamilton, K. J. Walsh, S. R. Chesley, P. R. Christensen, B. E. Clark, H. C. Connolly,
A. G. Yanchilina, M. P. Zorzano, Aqueously altered igneous rocks sampled on the floor of M. K. Crombie, M. G. Daly, J. P. Emery, T. J. McCoy, J. W. McMahon, D. J. Scheeres,
Jezero crater, Mars. Science 377, eabo2196 (2022). S. Messenger, K. Nakamura-­Messenger, K. Righter, S. A. Sandford, OSIRIS-­REx: Sample
30. E. Scheller, J. R. Hollis, E. L. Cardarelli, A. Steele, L. W. Beegle, R. Bhartia, P. Conrad, return from asteroid (101955) Bennu. Space Sci. Rev. 212, 925–984 (2017).
K. Uckert, S. Sharma, B. L. Ehlmann, W. J. Abbey, S. A. Asher, K. C. Benison, E. L. Berger, 46. D. J. Scheeres, J. W. McMahon, A. S. French, D. N. Brack, S. R. Chesley, D. Farnocchia,
O. Beyssac, B. L. Bleefeld, T. Bosak, A. J. Brown, A. S. Burton, S. V. Bykov, E. Cloutis, Y. Takahashi, J. M. Leonard, J. Geeraert, B. Page, P. Antreasian, K. Getzandanner,
A. G. Fairén, L. DeFlores, K. A. Farley, D. M. Fey, T. Fornaro, A. C. Fox, M. Fries, D. Rowlands, E. M. Mazarico, J. Small, D. E. Highsmith, M. Moreau, J. P. Emery, B. Rozitis,
K. Hickman-­Lewis, W. F. Hug, J. E. Huggett, S. Imbeah, R. S. Jakubek, L. C. Kah, P. Kelemen, M. Hirabayashi, P. Sánchez, S. Van Wal, P. Tricarico, R.-­L. Ballouz, C. L. Johnson,
M. R. Kennedy, T. Kizovski, C. Lee, Y. Liu, L. Mandon, F. M. McCubbin, K. R. Moore, M. M. Al Asad, H. C. M. Susorney, O. S. Barnouin, M. G. Daly, J. A. Seabrook, R. W. Gaskell,
B. E. Nixon, J. I. Núñez, C. Rodriguez Sanchez-­Vahamonde, R. D. Roppel, M. Schulte, E. E. Palmer, J. R. Weirich, K. J. Walsh, E. R. Jawin, E. B. Bierhaus, P. Michel, W. F. Bottke,
M. A. Sephton, S. K. Sharma, S. Siljeström, S. Shkolyar, D. L. Shuster, J. I. Simon, R. J. Smith, M. C. Nolan, H. C. Connolly Jr., D. S. Lauretta, The OSIRIS-­REx Team, The dynamic
K. M. Stack, K. Steadman, B. P. Weiss, A. Werynski, A. J. Williams, R. C. Wiens, K. H. Williford, geophysical environment of (101955) Bennu based on OSIRIS-­REx measurements. Nat.
K. Winchell, B. Wogsland, A. Yanchiilina, R. Yingling, M.-­P. Zorzano, Aqueous alteration Astron. 3, 352–361 (2019).
processes in Jezero crater, Mars−implications for organic geochemistry. Science 378, 47. D. N. DellaGiustina, J. P. Emery, D. R. Golish, B. Rozitis, C. A. Bennett, K. N. Burke,
1105–1110 (2022). R.-­L. Ballouz, K. J. Becker, P. R. Christensen, C. Y. D. d’Aubigny, V. E. Hamilton, D. C. Reuter,
31. C. D. K. Herd, T. Bosak, K. A. Farley, K. M. Stack, K. C. Benison, B. A. Cohen, A. D. Czaja, B. Rizk, A. A. Simon, E. Asphaug, J. L. Bandfield, O. S. Barnouin, M. A. Barucci,
V. Debaille, Y. Goreva, E. M. Hausrath, K. Hickman-­Lewis, E. N. Mansbach, L. E. Mayhew, E. B. Bierhaus, R. P. Binzel, W. F. Bottke, N. E. Bowles, H. Campins, B. C. Clark, B. E. Clark,

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Tsinghua University on September 06, 2024

M. A. Sephton, N. Randazzo, D. L. Shuster, S. Siljeström, J. I. Simon, M. Wadhwa, B. P. Weiss, H. C. Connolly Jr., M. G. Daly, J. de Leon, M. Delbo’, J. D. P. Deshapriya, C. M. Elder,
M.-­P. Zorzano, A. J. Brown, Sampling by the NASA Perseverance rover for Mars sample S. Fornasier, C. W. Hergenrother, E. S. Howell, E. R. Jawin, H. H. Kaplan, T. R. Kareta,
return, in 54th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (LPI, 2023). L. Le Corre, J.-­Y. Li, J. Licandro, L. F. Lim, P. Michel, J. Molaro, M. C. Nolan, M. Pajola,
32. J. Balaram, M. Aung, M. P. Golombek, The Ingenuity helicopter on the Perseverance rover. M. Popescu, J. L. R. Garcia, A. Ryan, S. R. Schwartz, N. Shultz, M. A. Siegler, P. H. Smith,
Space Sci. Rev. 217, 56 (2021). E. Tatsumi, C. A. Thomas, K. J. Walsh, C. W. V. Wolner, X.-­D. Zou, D. S. Lauretta, The
33. T. Tzanetos, M. Aung, J. Balaram, H. F. Grip, J. T. Karras, T. K. Canham, G. Kubiak, OSIRIS-­REx Team, Properties of rubble-­pile asteroid (101955) Bennu from OSIRIS-­REx
J. Anderson, G. Merewether, M. Starch, M. Pauken, S. Cappucci, M. Chase, M. Golombek, imaging and thermal analysis. Nat. Astron. 3, 341–351 (2019).
O. Toupet, M. C. Smart, S. Dawson, E. B. Ramirez, J. Lam, R. Stern, N. Chahat, J. Ravich, 48. R. D. Lorenz, E. P. Turtle, J. W. Barnes, M. G. Trainer, D. S. Adams, K. E. Hibbard,
R. Hogg, B. Pipenberg, M. Keennon, K. H. Williford, Ingenuity Mars helicopter: From C. Z. Sheldon, K. Zacny, P. N. Peplowski, D. J. Lawrence, M. A. Ravine, T. G. McGee,
technology demonstration to extraterrestrial scout, in 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference K. S. Sotzen, S. M. Mackenzi, J. W. Langelaan, S. Schmitz, L. S. Wolfarth, P. D. Bedini,
(AERO) (IEEE, 2022), pp. 1–19. Dragonfly: A rotorcraft lander concept for scientific exploration at Titan. Johns Hopkins
34. M. T. Lemmon, R. D. Lorenz, J. Rabinovitch, C. E. Newman, N. R. Williams, R. Sullivan, APL Tech. Dig. 34, 14 (2018).
M. P. Golombek, J. F. Bell III, J. N. Maki, A. Vicente-­Retortillo, Lifting and transport of 49. J. W. Barnes, E. P. Turtle, M. G. Trainer, R. D. Lorenz, S. M. MacKenzie, W. B. Brinckerhoff,
martian dust by the Ingenuity helicopter rotor downwash as observed by high-­speed M. L. Cable, C. M. Ernst, C. Freissinet, K. P. Hand, A. G. Hayes, S. M. Hörst, J. R. Johnson,
imaging from the Perseverance rover. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 127, e2022JE007605 (2022). E. Karkoschka, D. J. Lawrence, A. L. Gall, J. M. Lora, C. P. McKay, R. S. Miller, S. L. Murchie,
35. NASA, Chinese Tianwen-­1 “Zhurong” Rover, https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/ C. D. Neish, C. E. Newman, J. Núñez, M. P. Panning, A. M. Parsons, P. N. Peplowski,
display.action?id=2020-­049A. L. C. Quick, J. Radebaugh, S. C. R. Rafkin, H. Shiraishi, J. M. Soderblom, K. S. Sotzen,
36. X. Qin, X. Ren, X. Wang, J. Liu, H. Wu, X. Zeng, Y. Sun, Z. Chen, S. Zhang, Y. Zhang, W. Chen, A. M. Stickle, E. R. Stofan, C. Szopa, T. Tokano, T. Wagner, C. Wilson, R. A. Yingst, K. Zacny,
B. Liu, D. Liu, L. Guo, K. Li, X. Zeng, H. Huang, Q. Zhang, S. Yu, C. Li, Z. Guo, Modern water S. C. Stähler, Science goals and objectives for the Dragonfly Titan rotorcraft relocatable
at low latitudes on Mars: Potential evidence from dune surfaces. Sci. Adv. 9, eadd8868 lander. Planet. Sci. J. 2, 130 (2021).
(2023). 50. S. M. Howell, R. T. Pappalardo, NASA’s Europa Clipper—A mission to a potentially
37. NASA, ExoMars Rover, https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display. habitable ocean world. Nat. Commun. 11, 1311 (2020).
action?id=EXOMARS22. 51. O. Grasset, M. K. Dougherty, A. Coustenis, E. J. Bunce, C. Erd, D. Titov, M. Blanc, A. Coates,
38. NASA, NASA ESA Mars Sample Return Mission, https://mars.nasa.gov/msr/. P. Drossart, L. N. Fletcher, H. Hussmann, R. Jaumann, N. Krupp, J.-­P. Lebreton,
39. M. A. Meyer, G. Kminek, D. W. Beaty, B. L. Carrier, T. Haltigin, L. E. Hays , C. B. Agree, O. Prieto-­Ballesteros, P. Tortora, F. Tosi, T. Van Hoolst, Jupiter ICy moons Explorer (JUICE):
H. Busemann, B. Cavalazzi, C. S. Cockell, V. Debaille, D. P. Glavin, M. M. Grady, E. Hauber, An ESA mission to orbit Ganymede and to characterise the Jupiter system. Planet. Space
A. Hutzler, B. Marty, F. M. McCubbin, L. M. Pratt, A. B. Regberg, A. L. Smith, C. L. Smith, Sci. 78, 1–21 (2013).
R. E. Summons, T. D. Swindle, K. T. Tait, N. J. Tosca, A. Udry, T. Usui, M. A. Velbel, 52. K. P. Hand, A. E. Murray, J. B. Garvin, W. B. Brinckerhoff, B. C. Christner, K. S. Edgett,
M. Wadhwa, F. Westall, M.-­P. Zorzano, Final report of the Mars Sample Return Science B. L. Ehlmann, C. R. German, A. G. Hayes, T. M. Hoehler, S. M. Horst, J. I. Lunine,
Planning Group 2 (MSPG2). Astrobiology 22 (Suppl. 1), S5–S26 (2022). K. H. Nealson, C. Paranicas, B. E. Schmidt, D. E. Smith, A. R. Rhoden, M. J. Russell,
40. O. Figueroa, S. Kearns, N. Boll, J. Elbel, Mars Sample Return (MSR) independent review A. S. Templeton, P. A. Willis, R. A. Yingst, C. B. Phillips, M. L. Cable, K. L. Craft, A. E. Hofmann,
board-­2 final report (NASA, 2023), https://nasa.gov/wp-­content/uploads/2023/09/ T. A. Nordheim, R. P. Pappalardo; Project Engineering Team, “Report of the Europa Lander
msr-­irb-­report-­final-­copy-­v3.pdf. science definition team” (NASA, 2017).
41. S. Connelly, J. Gramling, S. Thibault, M. Meyer, Mars sample return independent review 53. R. Crum, B. A. Kennedy, T. P. McElrath, J. C. Gallon, D. Sabahi, S. W. Thurman, B. Goldstein,
response planning and updates (NASA, 2023), https://science.nasa.gov/wp-­content/ P. Estabrook, S. W. Lee, J. A. Dooley, W. B. Brinckerhoff, K. S. Edgett, C. R. German,
uploads/2023/11/day1-­1345-­pac-­13nov2023-­smd-­msr-­finalv1.pdf. T. M. Hoehler, S. M. Hörst, J. I. Lunine, C. Paranicas, K. Nealson, D. E. Smith, A. S. Templeton,
42. K. Kuramoto, Y. Kawakatsu, M. Fujimoto, A. Araya, M. A. Barucci, H. Genda, N. Hirata, M. J. Russell, B. Schmidt, B. Christner, B. Ehlmann, A. Hayes, A. Rhoden, P. Willis, R. A. Yingst,
H. Ikeda, T. Imamura, J. Helbert, S. Kameda, M. Kobayashi, H. Kusano, D. J. Lawrence, K. Craft, M. E. Cameron, T. Nordheim, J. Pitesky, J. Scully, J. Hofgartner, S. W. Sell,
K. Matsumoto, P. Michel, H. Miyamoto, T. Morota, H. Nakagawa, T. Nakamura, K. Ogawa, K. J. Barltrop, J. Izraelevitz, E. J. Brandon, J. Seong, J.-­P. Jones, J. Pasalic, K. J. Billings,
H. Otake, M. Ozaki, S. Russell, S. Sasaki, H. Sawada, H. Senshu, S. Tachibana, N. Terada, J. P. Ruiz, R. V. Bugga, D. Graham, L. A. Arenas, D. Takeyama, M. Drummond, H. Aghazarian,
S. Ulamec, T. Usui, K. Wada, S.-­I. Watanabe, S. Yokota, Martian moons exploration MMX: A. J. Andersen, K. B. Andersen, E. W. Anderson, A. Babuscia, P. G. Backes,
Sample return mission to Phobos elucidating formation processes of habitable planets. E. S. Bailey, D. Balentine, C. G. Ballard, D. F. Berisford, P. Bhandari, K. Blackwood,
Earth Planets Space 74, 1–31 (2022). G. S. Bolotin, E. A. Bovre, J. Bowkett, K. T. Boykins, M. S. Bramble, T. M. Brice, P. Briggs,
43. NASA, Martian Moons eXploration (MMX), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/ A. P. Brinkman, S. M. Brooks, B. B. Buffington, B. Burns, M. L. Cable, S. Campagnola,
display.action?id=MMX-­MARS. L. A. Cangahuala, G. A. Carr, J. R. Casani, N. E. Chahat, B. K. Chamberlain-­Simon, Y. Cheng,
44. P. Michel, S. Ulamec, U. Böttger, M. Grott, N. Murdoch, P. Vernazza, C. Sunday, Y. Zhang, S. A. Chien, B. T. Cook, M. Cooper, M. Di Nicola, B. Clement, Z. Dean, E. A. Cullimore,
R. Valette, R. Castellani, J. Biele, S. Tardivel, O. Groussin, L. Jorda, J. Knolenberg, A. G. Curtis, J.-­P. de la Croix, P. Di Pasquale, E. M. Dodd, L. A. Dubord, J. A. Edlund,
J. T. Grundmann, D. Arrat, G. Pont, S. Mary, M. Grebenstein, H. Miyamoto, T. Nakamura, R. Ellyin, B. Emanuel, J. T. Foster, A. J. Ganino, G. J. Garner, M. T. Gibson, M. Gildner,
K. Wada, K. Yoshikawa, K. Kuramoto, The MMX rover: Performing in situ surface K. J. Glazebrook, M. E. Greco, W. M. Green, S. J. Hatch, M. M. Hetzel, W. A. Hoey,
investigations on Phobos. Earth Planets Space 74, 2 (2022). A. E. Hofmann, R. Ionasescu, A. Jain, J. D. Jasper, J. R. Johannesen, G. K. Johnson, I. Jun,
45. D. S. Lauretta, S. S. Balram-­Knutson, E. Beshore, W. V. Boynton, C. D. d’Aubigny, A. B. Katake, S. Y. Kim-­Castet, D. I. Kim, W. Kim, E. F. Klonicki, B. Kobeissi, B. D. Kobie,
D. N. DellaGiustina, H. L. Enos, D. R. Golish, C. W. Hergenrother, E. S. Howell, C. A. Bennett, J. Kochocki, M. Kokorowski, J. A. Kosberg, K. Kriechbaum, T. P. Kulkarni, R. L. Lam,

Chien et al., Sci. Robot. 9, eadi6424 (2024) 19 June 2024 11 of 13

S c i e n c e R o b o t i cs | R e v i e w

D. F. Landau, M. A. Lattimore, S. L. Laubach, C. R. Lawler, G. Lim, J. Y. Lin, T. E. Litwin, 70. C. G. Henshaw, S. Glassner, B. Naasz, B. Roberts, Grappling spacecraft. Ann. Rev. Control
M. W. Lo, C. A. Logan, E. Maghasoudi, L. Mandrake, Y. Marchetti, E. Marteau, K. A. Maxwell, Robot. Auton. Syst. 5, 137–159 (2022).
J. B. McNamee, O. Mcintyre, M. Meacham, J. P. Melko, J. Mueller, D. A. Muliere, A. Mysore, 71. S. Kayastha, J. Katupitiya, G. Pearce, A. Rao, Comparative study of post-­impact motion
J. Nash, H. Ono, J. M. Parker, R. C. Perkins, A. E. Petropoulos, A. Gaut, M. Y. P. Gomez, control of a flexible arm space robot. Eur. J. Control 69, 100738 (2023).
R. P. Casillas, M. Preudhomme, G. Pyrzak, J. Rapinchuk, J. M. Ratliff, T. L. Ray, E. T. Roberts, 72. E. Papadopoulos, F. Aghili, O. Ma, R. Lampariello, Robotic manipulation and capture in
K. Roffo, D. C. Roth, J. A. Russino, T. M. Schmidt, M. J. Schoppers, J. S. Senent, F. Serricchio, space: A survey. Front. Robot. AI 8, 686723 (2021).
D. J. Sheldon, L. R. Shiraishi, J. Shirvanian, K. J. Siegel, G. Singh, A. R. Sirota, E. D. Skulsky, 73. B. M. Moghaddam, R. Chhabra, On the guidance, navigation and control of in-­orbit space
J. S. Stehly, N. J. Strange, S. U. Stevens, E. T. Sunada, S. P. Tepsuporn, L. P. C. Tosi, N. Trawny, robotic missions: A survey and prospective vision. Acta Astronaut. 184, 70–100 (2021).
I. Uchenik, V. Verma, R. A. Volpe, C. T. Wagner, D. Wang, R. G. Willson, J. L. Wolff, A. T. Wong, 74. O.-­O. Christidi-­Loumpasefski, E. Papadopoulos, Parameter identification for an
A. K. Zimmer, K. G. Sukhatme, K. A. Bago, Y. Chen, A. M. Deardorff, R. S. Kuch, C. Lim, uncooperative captured satellite with spinning reaction wheels, in 2020 IEEE/RSJ
M. L. Syvertson, G. A. Arakaki, A. Avila, K. J. De Bruin, A. Frick, J. R. Harris, M. C. Heverly, International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE, 2020), pp.
J. M. Kawata, S.-­K. Kim, D. M. Kipp, J. Murphy, M. W. Smith, M. D. Spaulding, R. Thakker, 1865–1870.
N. Z. Warner, C. R. Yahnker, M. E. Young, T. Magner, D. Adams, P. Bedini, L. Mehr, 75. H. Mishra, A. M. Giordano, M. De Stefano, R. Lampariello, C. Ott, Inertia-­decoupled
C. Sheldon, S. Vernon, V. Bailey, M. Briere, M. Butler, A. Davis, S. Ensor, M. Gannon, equations for hardware-­in-­the-­loop simulation of an orbital robot with external forces, in
A. Haapala-­Chalk, T. Hartka, M. Holdridge, A. Hong, J. Hunt, J. Iskow, F. Kahler, K. Murray, 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) (IEEE,
D. Napolillo, M. Norkus, R. Pfisterer, J. Porter, D. Roth, P. Schwartz, L. Wolfarth, E. H. Cardiff, 2020), pp. 1879–1886.
A. Davis, E. W. Grob, J. R. Adam, E. Betts, J. Norwood, M. M. Heller, T. Voskuilen, 76. Y. Zhao, P. Huang, F. Zhang, Dynamic modeling and super-­twisting sliding mode control
P. Sakievich, L. Gray, D. J. Hansen, K. W. Irick, J. C. Hewson, J. Lamb, S. C. Stacy, for tethered space robot. Acta Astronaut. 143, 310–321 (2018).
C. M. Brotherton, A. S. Tappan, D. Benally, H. Thigpen, E. Ortiz, D. Sandoval, A. M. Ison, 77. P. Huang, F. Zhang, L. Chen, Z. Meng, Y. Zhang, Z. Liu, Y. Hu, A review of space tether in
M. Warren, P. G. Stromberg, P. M. Thelen, B. Blasy, P. Nandy, A. W. Haddad, L. B. Trujillo, new applications. Nonlinear Dyn. 94, 1–19 (2018).

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Tsinghua University on September 06, 2024

T. H. Wiseley, S. A. Bell, N. P. Teske, C. Post, L. Torres-­Castro, C. Grosso, M. Wasiolek, Science 78. B. Zhang, W. Yuanfeng, B. Zhao, J. Chanussot, D. Hong, J. Yao, L. Gao, Progress and
goals and mission architecture of the Europa lander mission concept. Planet. Sci. J. 3, 22 challenges in intelligent remote sensing satellite systems. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs.
(2022). Remote Sens. 15, 1814–1822 (2022).
54. J. Bowkett, D. I. Kim, J. Nash, D. Pastor Moreno, M. Gildner, R. Thakker, K. Wehage, 79. M. M. Kobayashi, F. Stocklin, M. Pugh, I. Kuperman, D. Bell, S. El-­Nimri, B. Johnson,
S.-­K. Kim, A. Brinkman, B. Emanuel, J. Edlund, B. Ridge, A. Jain, P. Backes, Demonstration N. Huynh, S. Kelly, J. Nessel, A. Svitak, T. Williams, N. Linton, M. Arciaga, A. Dissanayake,
of autonomous sampling techniques in an icy moon terrestrial analog, in 2023 IEEE NASA’s high-­rate Ka-­band downlink system for the NISAR mission. Acta Astronaut. 159,
Aerospace Conference (IEEE, 2023), pp. 1–15. 358–361 (2019).
55. C. Wagner, C. Mauceri, P. Twu, Y. Marchetti, J. Russino, D. Aguilar, G. Rabideau, 80. A. J. Alqaraghuli, H. Abdellatif, J. M. Jornet, Performance analysis of a dual terahertz/ka
S. Tepsuporn, S. Chien, G. Reeves, Demonstrating autonomy for complex space missions: band communication system for satellite mega-­constellations, in 2021 IEEE 22nd
A Europa Lander Mission autonomy prototype. J. Aerosp. Inf. Syst. 21, 37–57 (2024). International Symposium on a World of Wireless, Mobile and Multimedia Networks
56. T. S. Vaquero, G. Daddi, R. Thakker, M. Paton, A. Jasour, M. P. Strub, R. M. Swan, R. Royce, (WoWMoM) (IEEE, 2021), pp. 316–322.
M. Gildner, P. Tosi, M. Veismann, P. Gavrilov, E. Marteau, J. Bowkett, D. L. de Mola Lemus, 81. S. Zhang, Q. Yuan, J. Li, J. Sun, X. Zhang, Scene-­adaptive remote sensing image
Y. Nakka, B. Hockman, A. Orekhov, T. D. Hasseler, C. Leake, B. Nuernberger, P. Proença, super-­resolution using a multiscale attention network. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens.
W. Reid, W. Talbot, N. Georgiev, T. Pailevanian, A. Archanian, E. Ambrose, J. Jasper, 58, 4764–4779 (2020).
R. Etheredge, C. Roman, D. Levine, K. Otsu, S. Yearicks, H. Melikyan, R. R. Rieber, 82. R. Shang, J. Zhang, L. Jiao, Y. Li, N. Marturi, R. Stolkin, Multi-­scale adaptive feature fusion
K. Carpenter, J. Nash, A. Jain, L. Shiraishi, M. Robinson, M. Travers, H. Choset, J. Burdick, network for semantic segmentation in remote sensing images. Remote Sens. 12, 872 (2020).
A. Gardner, M. Cable, M. Ingham, M. Ono, EELS: Autonomous snake-­like robot with task 83. D. Hong, L. Gao, J. Yao, B. Zhang, A. Plaza, J. Chanussot, Graph convolutional networks for
and motion planning capabilities for ice world exploration. Sci. Robot. 9, eadh8332 (2024). hyperspectral image classification. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 59, 5966–5978 (2020).
57. Z. Jiang, X. Cao, X. Huang, H. Li, M. Ceccarelli, Progress and development trend of space 84. P. Miralles, K. Thangavel, A. F. Scannapieco, N. Jagadam, P. Baranwal, B. Faldu, R. Abhang,
intelligent robot technology. Space Sci. Technol. 2022, 9832053 (2022). S. Bhatia, S. Bonnart, I. Bhatnagar, B. Batul, P. Prasad, H. Ortega-­González, H. Joseph,
58. D. Li, L. Zhong, W. Zhu, Z. Xu, Q. Tang, W. Zhan, A survey of space robotic technologies for H. More, S. Morchedi, A. Kumar Panda, M. Zaccaria Di Fraia, D. Wischert, D. Stepanova, A
on-­orbit assembly. Space Sci. Technol. 2022, 9849170 (2022). critical review on the state-­of-­the-­art and future prospects of machine learning for Earth
59. P. Huang, F. Zhang, J. Cai, D. Wang, Z. Meng, J. Guo, Dexterous tethered space robot: observation operations. Adv. Space Res. 71, 4959–4986 (2023).
Design, measurement, control, and experiment. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 53, 85. L. Jiao, Z. Huang, X. Liu, Y. Yang, M. Ma, J. Zhao, C. You, B. Hou, S. Yang, F. Liu, W. Ma, L. Li,
1452–1468 (2017). P. Chen, Z. Feng, X. Tang, Y. Guo, X. Zhang, D. Quan, S. Wang, W. Li, J. Bai, Y. Li, R. Shuang,
60. J. T. Keane, S. M. Tikoo, J. Elliott, Endurance: Lunar South Pole–Aitken Basin Traverse and J. Feng, Brain-­inspired remote sensing interpretation: A comprehensive survey. IEEE J. Sel.
Sample Return Rover, mission concept study report for the 2023–2032 Planetary Science Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 16, 2992–3033 (2023).
and Astrobiology Decadal Survey (NASA, 2020), https://science.nasa.gov/wp-­content/ 86. G. Curzi, D. Modenini, P. Tortora, Large constellations of small satellites: A survey of near
uploads/2023/11/endurance-­spa-­traverse-­and-­sample-­return.pdf. future challenges and missions. Aerospace 7, 133 (2020).
61. A. Parness N. Abcouwer, C. Fuller, N. Wiltsie, J. Nash, B. Kennedy, Lemur 3: A limbed 87. E. Stoll, H. Konstanski, C. Anderson, K. Douglass, M. Oxfort, The RapidEye constellation
climbing robot for extreme terrain mobility in space, in 2017 IEEE International Conference and its data products, in 2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference (IEEE, 2012), pp. 1–9.
on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (IEEE, 2017), pp. 5467–5473. 88. A. A. Thompson, Overview of the RADARSAT constellation mission. Can. J. Remote Sens.
62. R. Jin, P. Rocco, Y. Geng, Cartesian trajectory planning of space robots using a 41, 401–407 (2015).
multi-­objective optimization. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 108, 106360 (2021). 89. J. R. Kopacz, R. Herschitz, J. Roney, Small satellites an overview and assessment. Acta
63. M. H. Nair, M. C. Rai, M. Poozhiyil, Design engineering a walking robotic manipulator for Astronaut. 170, 93–105 (2020).
in-­space assembly missions. Front. Robot. AI 9, 995813 (2022). 90. N. T. Anderson, G. B. Marchisio, “WorldView-­2 and the evolution of the DigitalGlobe remote
64. W. F. R. Ribeiro, K. Uno, M. Imai, K. Murase, K. Yoshida, RAMP: Reaction-­aware motion sensing satellite constellation: Introductory paper for the special session on WorldView-­2”
planning of multi-­legged robots for locomotion in microgravity, in 2023 IEEE International in Algorithms and Technologies for Multispectral, Hyperspectral, and Ultraspectral Imagery
Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (IEEE, 2023), pp. 11845–11851. XVIII, S. S. Shen, P. E. Lewis, Eds., vol. 8390 of Proceedings (SPIE, 2012), p. 83900L.
65. W. Xiang, S. Yan, Dynamic analysis of space robot manipulator considering clearance 91. D. R. Li, China’s High-­Resolution Earth Observation System (CHEOS): Advances and
joint and parameter uncertainty: Modeling, analysis and quantification. Acta Astronaut. perspectives. ISPRS Ann. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inform. Sci. 3, 583–590 (2022).
169, 158–169 (2020). 92. World Meteorological Organization, Details for Satellite Programme: Beijing-­2, https://
66. A. Seddaoui, C. M. Saaj, Combined nonlinear H∞ controller for a controlled-­floating space.oscar.wmo.int/satelliteprogrammes/view/beijing_2.
space robot. J. Guid. Control Dyn. 42, 1878–1885 (2019). 93. J. Fan, "Chinese Earth observation program and policy" in Satellite Earth Observations and
67. X. Zhang, J. Liu, Q. Gao, Z. Ju, Adaptive robust decoupling control of multi-­arm space Their Impact on Society and Policy, M. Onoda, O. R. Young, Eds. (Springer, 2017),
robots using time-­delay estimation technique. Nonlinear Dyn. 100, 2449–2467 (2020). pp. 105–110.
68. Y.-­H. Wu, Z.-­C. Yu, C.-­Y. Li, M.-­J. He, B. Hua, Z.-­M. Chen, Reinforcement learning in 94. World Meteorological Organization, Satellite: Jilin-­1, https://space.oscar.wmo.int/
dual-­arm trajectory planning for a free-­floating space robot. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 98, satellites/view/jilin_1.
105657 (2020). 95. Z. Jing, X. Hu, S. Li, H. Pan, Geolocation of lunar observations with JiLin-­1 high-­resolution
69. B. Dou, X. Yue, T. Zhang, Optimal detumbling strategy for a non-­cooperative target with optical sensor. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 61, 1–13 (2023).
unknown inertial parameters using a space manipulator. Adv. Space Res. 69, 3952–3965 96. M. K. Ben-­Larbi, K. F. Pozo, T. Haylok, M. Choi, B. Grzesik, A. Haas, D. Krupke, H. Konstanski,
(2022). V. Schaus, S. P. Fekete, C. Schurig, E. Stoll, Towards the automated operations of large

Chien et al., Sci. Robot. 9, eadi6424 (2024) 19 June 2024 12 of 13

S c i e n c e R o b o t i cs | R e v i e w

distributed satellite systems. Part 1: Review and paradigm shifts. Adv. Space Res. 67, 113. H. Jamal, V. Gupta, N. Khera, S. Vijayarangan, D. S. Wettergreen, W. L. Whittaker, Terrain
3598–3619 (2021). mapping and pose estimation for polar shadowed regions of the Moon, in Proceedings of
97. D. J. Lary, A. H. Alavi, A. H. Gandomi, A. L. Walker, Machine learning in geosciences and International Symposium of Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space 2020
remote sensing. Geosci. Front. 7, 3–10 (2016). (i-­SAIRAS, 2020).
98. A. E. Maxwell, T. A. Warner, F. Fang, Implementation of machine-­learning classification in 114. NASA, Masten Mission 1 (TO 19C), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.
remote sensing: An applied review. Int. J. Remote Sens. 39, 2784–2817 (2018). action?id=XL1-­LANDR.
99. K. Schulz, R. Hänsch, U. Sörgel, Machine learning methods for remote sensing 115. NASA, Intuitive Machines 2 (PRIME 1), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/
applications: An overview, in Earth Resources and Environmental Remote Sensing/GIS display.action?id=PRIME-­1.
Applications IX, vol. 10790 of Proceedings (SPIE, 2018), p. 1079002. 116. European Space Agency, Griffin Lander, https://esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/
100. J. Holloway, K. Mengersen, Statistical machine learning methods and remote Images/2022/09/Griffin_lander.
sensing for sustainable development goals: A review. Remote Sens. 10, 1365 (2018). 117. R. Vaughan, VIPER–volatiles investigating polar exploration rover: Mission overview, in
101. H. Shirmard, E. Farahbakhsh, R. D. Müller, R. Chandra, A review of machine learning in International Small Satellite Conference 2020 (ISSC, 2020).
processing remote sensing data for mineral exploration. Remote Sens. Environ. 268, 118. T. Fong, VIPER–Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover (2021), https://ntrs.nasa.
112750 (2022). gov/api/citations/20210012662/downloads/viper-­2021-­03-­29.pdf.
102. I. A. D. Nesnas, L. M. Fesq, R. A. Volpe, Autonomy for space robots: Past, present, and 119. NASA, Blue Ghost Mission 1 (Firefly), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.
future. Curr. Robot. Rep. 2, 251–263 (2021). action?id=BLUEGHOST.
103. M. J. Schuster, M. G. Müller, S. G. Brunner, H. Lehner, P. Lehner, R. Sakagami, A. Dömel, 120. NASA, Intuitive Machines 3 (PRISM), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.
L. Meyer, B. Vodermayer, R. Giubilato, M. Vayugundla, J. Reill, F. Steidle, I. von Bargen, action?id=IM-­3-­NOVA.
K. Bussmann, R. Belder, P. Lutz, W. Stürzl, M. Smíšek, M. Maier, S. Stoneman, A. F. Prince, 121. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, CADRE mission (NASA, 2024), https://jpl.nasa.gov/missions/
B. Rebele, M. Durner, E. Staudinger, S. Zhang, R. Pöhlmann, E. Bischoff, C. Braun, cooperative-­autonomous-­distributed-­robotic-­exploration.

Downloaded from https://www.science.org at Tsinghua University on September 06, 2024

S. Schröder, E. Dietz, S. Frohmann, A. Börner, H.-­W. Hübers, B. Foing, R. Triebel, 122. NASA, Blue Ghost Mission 2 (Firefly), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.
A. O. Albu-­Schäffer, A. Wedler, The ARCHES space-­analogue demonstration action?id=BLUEGHOS2.
mission: Towards heterogeneous teams of autonomous robots for collaborative 123. NASA, Draper Lunar Lander, https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.
scientific sampling in planetary exploration. IEEE Robot. Autom. Lett. 5, 5315–5322 action?id=DRAPER.
(2020). 124. Canadian Space Agency, First Canadian rover to explore the Moon (2024), https://
104. S. Y. Kim, K. Roffo, S. C. Ye, G. Tan-­Wang, S. Laubach, G. Pyrzak, G. Reeves, Designing for asc-­csa.gc.ca/eng/astronomy/moon-­exploration/first-­canadian-­rover-­to-­explore-­the-­
operating autonomous space missions: Concept of operations design for Europa lander moon.asp.
using mission-­level modeling and simulation, in ASCEND 2021 (ARC, 2021), p. 4116. 125. J. Heldmann, J. Elliott, INSPIRE: In situ solar system polar ice roving explorer, mission
105. C. Basich, J. A. Russino, S. Chien, S. Zilberstein, A sampling based approach to robust concept study report for the 2023–2032 Planetary Science and Astrobiology Decadal
planning for a planetary lander, in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Survey (NASA, 2020), https://smd-­cms.nasa.gov/wp-­content/uploads/2023/10/
Robots and Systems (IROS), (IEEE, 2022), pp. 4106–4111. inspire-­lunar-­polar-­volatiles-­rover.pdf.
106. M. A. Post, X. T. Yan, P. Letier, Modularity for the future in space robotics: A review. Acta 126. M. Robinson, J. Elliott, Intrepid planetary mission concept study report, pre decadal
Astronaut. 189, 530–547 (2021). planetary mission concept study (NASA, 2020), https://science.nasa.gov/wp-­content/
107. D. Rossetti, B. Keer, J. Panek, B. Reed, F. Cepollina, R. Ritter, Spacecraft modularity for uploads/2023/11/lunar-­intrepid.pdf.
serviceable spacecraft, in AIAA SPACE 2015 Conference and Exposition (AIAA, 2015), 127. International Trade Administration, South Korea Space Industry (US Department of
pp. 1–12. Commerce, 2023), https://trade.gov/market-­intelligence/south-­korea-­space-­industry.
108. J. Fei, Q. Jia, G. Chen, T. Li, R. Wang, X. Zhang, Genetic algorithm-­based optimal design of
modular robot topology based on distributed parallel kinematic modeling and analysis. Acknowledgments
Eng. Appl. Artif. Intel. 123, 106251 (2023). Funding: This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
109. NASA, Peregrine Mission 1 (Astrobotic), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/ Institute of Technology, under a contract with NASA (80NM0018D0004). Author
display.action?id=PEREGRN-­1. contributions: Investigation: C.B. and G.V. Conceptualization: S.A.C. Methodology: S.A.C.
110. NASA, Intuitive Machines 1 (Odysseus), https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/ Supervision: S.A.C. Funding acquisition: S.A.C. Data validation: S.A.C. Project
display.action?id=IM-­1-­NOVA. administration: S.A.C. Visualization: C.B. Writing—original draft: S.A.C. and G.V. Writing—
111. V. Kumar, S. S. Sai, S. Vijayarangan, D. Wettergreen, H. Jones, P. Callaghan, H. Jamal, review and editing: C.B., S.A.C., and G.V.
W. L. Whittaker, Formulation of micro-­rover autonomy software for lunar exploration, in
Proceedings of International Symposium of Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation Submitted 11 May 2023
in Space 2020 (i-­SAIRAS, 2020). Accepted 21 May 2024
112. Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, MoonRanger (2021), https://labs.ri.cmu. Published 19 June 2024
edu/moonranger/. 10.1126/scirobotics.adi6424

Chien et al., Sci. Robot. 9, eadi6424 (2024) 19 June 2024 13 of 13